J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed for the enhancement of the compensation granted by the award dated 07.07.2009, in M.C.O.P. No.378 of 2006, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Sub Judge), Gobichettipalayam, Erode District.

2. The victim of the accident had died three years after the date of accident, which took place on 25.06.2006. The legal heirs of the claimant are the appellants herein. They filed the above said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.4,00,0000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased in the accident that took place on 25.06.2006.

3. The Tribunal, considering the pleadings, and oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident was not proved on account of non production of documents and non-examination of proper evidence on the side of the claimant, and hence dismissed the claim petition.

4. Not being satisfied by the Order of the Tribunal dated

07.07.2009, in M.C.O.P. No.378 of 2006, the appellants have come out with the present appeal seeking enhancement of compensation.

5. The claimants are the dependents of the deceased. The deceased has not died in the course of the accident, that took place on 25.06.2006. The deceased suffered only injury in the said accident. Three years after the accident and that too after the demise of the injured person, who have died not due to the accident, the claimants have approached the Tribunal claiming compensation and the same was rejected by the Tribunal. The present appeal which has been presented in the year 2009 has been numbered only in the year 2019, with an inordinate delay and the same has been condoned and taken up for hearing.

The sum and substance of the case is that:

a) whether both the drivers are responsible for the accident that took place on 25.06.2006;

b) whether the claimant's appeal has got to be allowed; and c) whether there is any need for modifying the award of the Tribunal.

Admittedly, the claim has been filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, in the present case and negligence has got to be proved by the claimants. For the sake of convenience, the evidence recorded by the Tribunal is extracted below:- ,e;j rhiy tpgj;J rk;ge;jkhf kDjhuhpd;

thf;FK%yj;jpd; nghpy; ,e;j tHf;F rk;ge;jg;gl;l fhty; Jiwapduhy; gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJ th.rh.M.1 Kjy; jfty; mwpf;ifia nehf;Fk;nghJ bjspthfpwJ.

k.rh.M.1-y;

////////nkw;go g!;ir gs[ pak;gloapy; ,Ue;J ,ut[

“

8/30 kzpf;F ohpg; vLj;J jpUg;g{h; nehf;fp jpUg;g{h; - mtpdhrp bkapd; nuhl;oy; fhe;jp efh; uh$[h jpnal;lh; mUfpy; tlf;fpypUe;J bjw;fhf Rkhh; 9/40 kdpastpy; tUk;nghJ nkw;go nuhl;oy; bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;fhf te;j yhhp xd;wpd; Xl;Ldh; nkw;go yhhpia mjpntfkhft[k.; m$hf;fpuijahft[k; Xlo; te;J ehd; Xl;or; brd;w g!;rpd; kPJ gykhf nkhjptpl;lJ. ,jpy; g!;rpd; tyJg[wk; gyj;j nrjkile;J vdJ tyJ ,lJ fhy; Kl;oapy; uj;j fhaKk.; vdJ ,lJ ifjhl;L tpuypy;

gyj;j uj;j fhaKk ; Vwg; l;Ltpll; J/

”

vd;W fz;Lss; J/ kDjhuh; jd;Dila FWf;F tprhuizapy;.

uh$[h jpnal;lh; tHpapypUe;J jpUg;g{h;

bry;tjw;fhf mtpdhrp nuhl;oy; te;njd/; bjw;nfapypUe;J tlf;nf te;j yhhp vd;Dila g!;rpd; eLg;gFjpapy; tyJ gff; j;jpy; nkhjpaJ/

”

vd;W rhl;rpak; mspj;Js;shh;/ nkYk; kDjhuh;

jd;Dila FWf;F tprhuidapy.;

ehd; vGj;J K%ykhd g[fhh; fhty; epiyaj;jpy;

“

bfhLj;njd/; tpgj;J ele;j ,lj;ij fhty;Jiwapdh; ghh;itapl;L ghh;it kfrh; khjphp tiuglk; jahh;

bra;jhh;fs;/

vd;W xgg; [f; bfhz;Lss; hh;/ Mdhy;

k.rh.M.1 nehf;Fk;nghJ kDjhuhpd; g[fhh; thf;FKPyj;jpd; mog;gilapnyna Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gl;Ls;sJ vd;gJk.; kDjhuhpd; vGj;J KPykhd g[fhh; kD mog;gilapy; Kjy; jfty; mwpf;if gjpt[ bra;ag;gltpy;iybad;gJk; bjspthfpwJ/ nkYk; kDjhuhpd; FWf;F tprhuidia nehf;Fk;nghJ g!;!%k; yhhpak[ ; vjpu; vjpnu nkhjpf; bfhz;nl rhiy tpgj;J ele;J css; J vd;gJ bjspthfpwJ/ fhuzk; kDjhuh;

jd;Dila FWf;F tprhuidapy; bjw;fpypUe;J tlf;nf “

te;j yhhp vd;Dila g!;rpd; eLgg; Fjpapy; tyJ gf;fj;jpy; nkhjpaJ vd;W xg;gf[ ; bfhzL; ss; hh;. nkYk;

”

rhiy tpgj;J yhhpapd; oiuthpd; m[$hf;fpuijahYk.; ftdf; FiwtpdhYk; jtwhd ghijapy; te;jjd; fhuzkhf Vw;gl;lJ vd;gij bka;g;gpf;Fk; tiff;F k