COMMON JUDGMENT

****************

C.M.A(MD)No.359 of 2021 is directed against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1095 of 2014, dated 13.02.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court to deal with M.C.O.P cases, Tiruchirappalli.

2.Cross Objection(MD)No.4 of 2022 is filed against C.M.A(MD)No.359 of 2021 as against the judgment and decree made in M.C.O.P.No.1095 of 2014, dated 13.02.2020, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court to deal with M.C.O.P cases, Tiruchirappalli.

3.The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award on the ground that the deceased has not died due to the accidental injuries and the quantum of compensation. Pending appeal, the husband of the deceased namely, the first Petitioner has died. The claimants have filed cross objection seeking enhancement of compensation.

4.Pending trial, the claim Petitioners, who are the legal heirs of the deceased Chinnammal, wife of the original claim Petitioner filed claim petition stating that the said Chinnammal had sustained injuries in the accident taken place on 10.6.2016 and susequently died on 23.6.2012 due to the injuries sustained in the accident. 5.The Insurance Company has filed a counter statement denying the liability and also disputed the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and also disputed the manner of the accident besides raised a point that the deceased has not died due to the accidental injuries. The claim petitioners have examined P.W.1, P.W.2 and P.W. 2-Doctor and the Tribunal has held that the deceased had died due to the accidental injuries sustained in the accident which has taken place on 10.6.2012 and awarded compensation of Rs.6,76,500/-

with interest at the rate of 7.5%p.a.

6.The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company would contend that the Hero Honda Splendor Motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 48 U 6430 was not involved in the accident and hence, the accident is not happened as described in the claim Petition. Further the First Information Report was registered after ten days from the date of the accident and hence the involvement of the vehicle is doubtful.

7.Heard the submission made by the learned counsel for the claimants in support of the finding rendered by the Tribunal and pleaded for enhancement of compensation under the conventional heads.

8.After hearing both parties and perusing the record, I find that the accident was happened on 10.6.2012 at about 16.30 hours in Trichy Salem Main Road near Adaikalam Kathamman Kovil at Killiyanoor Village and the involvement of the motor cycle bearing Registration No.TN 48 U 6430 belonging to the first respondent dashed on the deceased Chinnammal and she has sustained injuries in the accident is not disputed by the first respondent. As per the first respondent, the deceased herself was negligent as she has not followed the traffic fules. The second respondent disputed that the above motor cycle belonging to the first respondent was not involved in the accident and they contended that the motor cycle has been introduced by the Petitioners in collusion with the owner of the vehicle, the first respondent.

9.Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report.The accident was happened on 10.6.2012 at 16.40 hours. Though the complaint was submitted by P.W.1 before Vathalai Police only on 20.12.2012 at 17.30 hours, the reason for delay is also noted in the FIR that when the Vathalai Police has come over to hospital, in which, the deceased had taken treatment as inpatient, P.W.1 requested the Police not to take any action in the matter, since the accused is his relative. Subsequently, the compromise talk between them has not given any fruitful result and so P.W.1 has submitted the complaint before the Vathalai Police. The reason for delay in submitting the complaint is believable.

10.The second respondent has examined the present Special Inspector of Police of Vathalai Police Station, through him th