C O M M O N J U D G M E N T

These two appeals are filed by the claimants who are the legal representatives of the deceased motor vehicle victims. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petitions, the present appeals are filed.

2.The brief facts of the case is that on 23.04.2013, the deceased Dinesh in his motor cycle Yamaha along with his friend Raghu, while travelling on the Bangalore to Chennai Road, near Konavattam, opposite to Royal Palace Thirumanamandapam, a Mini Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 18-K-7516 hit against the two wheeler. The rider and the pillion rider both sustained severe injury and they were taken to CMC hospital by the Highways Ambulance. However, they succumbed in the hospital. The two wheeler rider Dinesh was working as Van Driver and Real Estate business man earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Hence, the claim petition in MCOP No.102 of 2013 was filed by his wife and children/appellants in CMA No.2440 of 2017, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- against the owner of the Mini Lorry and its insurer.

3. The deceased pillion rider, Raghu @ Ragavendiran was aged 36 years at the time of accident and working as Car Driver and Real Estate Business man earning Rs.25,000/- per month. Claim petition in MCOP No.144 of 2013 was filed by his wife, children and parents/appellants in CMA No.2441 of 2017, claiming compensation of Rs.45,00,000/- against the owner of the Mini Lorry and its insurer.

4.Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company contested the claim on the ground that the rider of the two wheeler had no valid driving license. Similarly, the driver of the Mini Lorry, which was insured with them had no valid driving license. As far as the alleged two wheeler in which the deceased Dinesh and the deceased Raghu were travelling, the Registration number and its insurance particulars not disclosed by the claimants and the vehicle was not subjected to the motor vehicle inspection. Therefore, attributing total negligence on the part of the deceased and the non possession of the valid driving license by the Mini Lorry Driver, the Insurance Company pleaded absolving from liability.

5.Before the Tribunal, three witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimants. Ten exhibits were marked. On behalf of the Insurance Company, 2 witnesses were examined. The Insurance policy of the Mini Lorry marked as Ex.R1. Authorization letter was marked as Ex.X1. The driving license of the Mini Lorry Driver was marked as Ex.X2. However, after considering the evidence placed before, the Tribunal dismissed both the claim petitions.

6.The reasons for dismissal is stated in paragraph 6 of the Judgment, same is extracted below for better appreciation:

“6.The P.W.1 Thavamani is the wife of the deceased Dinesh. The PW2 Sharmila is the wife of the deceased Ragu @ Ragavendiran. The PW1 and PW2 are not seen the accident and not occurrence witnesses. They have heard about the accident through the third party and went to accident spot. Mr.Tamilarasan examined as P.W.3 as a occurrence witness. He deposed in the cross examination as follows:

ehd; gpukhzthf;FK:yj;jpy; 23/04/2015k; njjp “

ifbaGj;J nghl;nld;/ gpukhzthf;FK:yj;jpy; cs;s ifbahg;gk; rkPgj;jpy; nghl;l ifbahgg;k; my;y/

gpukhzthf;FK:yj;jpy; brhy;yg;gl;l tptu';fs; vdf;F bjhpahJ/

“

The chief proof affidavit of PW3 filed on 29.02.2016. The proof affidavit was attested by Advocate without date. The cross examination of PW3 clearly proved that he has not given any information and details for preparation of the chief proof affidavit and so that only he fairly admitted that he did not know the contents of the affidavit. When the PW3 did not know the contents of the affidavit, his evidence cannot be believed. Therefore, it is very clear, the claimants not proved the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent's driver through the PW3's evidence. As per the above cited ruling without proving the rash and negligent driving of the offending vehicle, the claimants are not entitled for the compensation. As