The court emphasized the importance of substantial evidence and the presumption under the Evidence Act in interpreting the actions of government servants in motor vehicle accident cases.

JUDGMENT :

S.R. Singharavelu, J. - MACA No. 821 of 2006 was preferred by the claimant whereas MACA No. 1080 of 2006 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company. The delay in preferring the appeal by the Insurance Company is condoned after hearing both sides on payment of compensation of Rs. 1,000/- cost by the Insurance Company to the other side which is complied.

2. There was an accident at 5.30 P.M on 19.5.2000 wherein a collision was made by truck bearing Regd. No. OR-05E-3915 upon the auto rickshaw wherein the claimants were traveling.

3. One of the occupant has immediately after the accident informed the police hastily mentioning the Regd. No. of the offending truck as OR-05E-1727. But on further investigation, the Investigating agency has traced the correct vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-05E-3915.

4. Based upon the inconsistency regarding the registration number of the offending truck between the information given to the police by the occupant and the finding of the Investigating agency, the Tribunal has declined to countenance the claim. The claimants have preferred MACA No. 345,354, 355 & 356 of 2003 wherein this Court has remanded the matter and ultimately the present award was passed against which both the claimants as well as the Insurance Company preferred these two appeals.

5. The Learned Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that when accident occurred, the very same injured occupant of the auto-rickshaw mentioned the number of the offending vehicle as OR-05E-1727. It is the manipulation made at the instance of the claimant under the guise of the investigation as if the offending vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-05E-3915.

6. The leaned Counsel for the Insurance Company further submitted that it is only with an ulterior motive the change of registration number was made, finding that the vehicle bearing Regd. No. OR-05E-3915 alone was covered by the insurance and not that of the vehicle bearing Reg. No. OR-05E-1727.

7. This argument can be accepted if the Insurance Company had summoned the Investigating Officer and grilled in the course of cross-examination with relevance to the records. That opportunity was totally available to the insurance Company even in the Trial Court. That has not been done. In such a situation, it is futile on the part of the Insurance Company now to come forward and place a case without any evidence which could have been procured before the Lower Court.

8. The Learned Counsel for the claimant submitted that the investigation was done unbiased and it cannot be alleged that manipulation was made in course of investigation unless substantial material is available. But as per the provision of the Evidence Act, it has to be presumed that action of the Govt. servant was done only in accordance with law unless the contrary is proved.

9. Therefore, I may only say that the number was hastily given by the injured-occupant which was traced and found by police as not involved in any accident and that upon statements of witnesses inquired into by the police officers, it came to light that the offending vehicle bearing Regd. was only OR-05E-3915. Therefore, the appeal of the Insurance Company as if there was wrong choice of vehicle is not acceptable. As there is no other point, the appeal of Insurance company is to be disallowed.

10. So far as the claim of enhancement of the claimant is concerned, we have taken into account of the reality of the situation that the deceased is an aged mother of the claimants who are themselves 46 years old and 41 years old. These claimants are earning members and they cannot be described as dependants and rather one would say that the deceased's aged mother could be the dependant of the claimants.

11. However, it is said that she was earning Rs. 1,800/- per month by working as a daily labourer which is assailed by the Insurance Company. It is rather excessive to say that an old aged mother could out of her physical labour earn Rs. 1800/- per month. However, the Tribunal had accepted i