JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed against the award, dated

24.02.2004, made in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2000, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-Fast Track Court), Pudukkottai. The appellant herein is the second respondent, the first respondent herein is the claimant and the second respondent herein is the first respondent in the original M.C.O.P.

Petition.

2. A brief substance of the claim petition, in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2000, is as follows:

On 23.10.1999, when the petitioner was travelling in an auto bearing Registration No.TN-55-A-3253 from Annavasal to Pudukkottai, the driver of the Auto drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and hit against a tri-cycle. The petitioner sustained injuries. He was admitted in Pudukkottai Government Hospital and took treatment for 2 days, then, he was admitted in a private hospital, Ponnamaravathy and took treatment for 2 days as inpatient. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as compensation.

3. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the first respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2000, is as follows:

The manner of accident is wrongly stated in the petition. The driver of the auto drove the vehicle in a slow and cautious manner. Though the auto driver was keeping the extreme left side of the road, to avoid hitting the tri-cycle, it was the tri-cycle, which came in a Zig-Nag manner and dashed against the Auto. The vehicle is insured with the second respondent and the first respondent is not liable to pay compensation.

4. A Brief substance of the counter filed by the second respondent, in M.C.O.P.No.837 of 2000, is as follows:

It is wrong to state that the first respondent driver drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner. The age, profession and monthly income, treatment particulars are all denied. The claim is excessive. There was no serious injuries, no loss of income or permanent disability. The injuries, period of treatment, mode of treatment, medical expenses are all denied. The vehicle was not having fitness certificate and permit. On the date of accident, the driver was not having valid driving licence. The petition is to be dismissed as against the second respondent.

5. 3 witnesses were examined and 6 documents were marked, on the side of the claimant. 6 witnesses were examined and 1 document was marked, on the side of the respondents. 3 documents were marked as Ex.X1 to X3. After considering both sides, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.1,01,700/- as compensation with

9% interest to be paid by the respondents.

6. Against the order, the second respondent / appellant has filed this appeal on the following grounds:-

The Tribunal wrongly fixed the liability on the appellant, without any proof. The Tribunal failed to consider that P.W.2 was an interested witness. F.I.R was not lodged either by P.W.1 or by P.W.2. Both in the F.I.R and in the wound certificate, the number of the vehicle was not mentioned. The claimant and the owner of the vehicle colluded together and a false claim petition was filed. The first respondent sustained only simple injuries. The claim is excessive.

7.On the side of the appellant, it is stated that the claimant failed to file a police complaint. The Doctor, who gave the first aid, failed to inform the police. In the wound certificate, neither the type of the vehicle nor the number of the vehicle was mentioned. The insured vehicle was not at all involved in the occurrence. 3 Persons travelled in the auto, to attend a musical event. The other 2 persons did not file any claim petition. The Doctor, who attended a medico legal cases, failed to send intimation to the police. The vehicle number was mentioned after collusion with the owner of the vehicle. The owner remained ex-parte. The Tribunal failed to consider that there was no F.I.R and there is no identification of the vehicle. The Tribunal failed to consider that there was no proof for the involvement of the vehicle. Unless the vehicle is involv