IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 27.06.2024 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH CMA Nos.2510 & 2511 of 2023

1.Kuppusamy

2.Kumarasamy

3.Baby ..Appellants in both CMAs .vs.

1.Keerthanon

2.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Company Ltd., 302, Muthu Plaza, 1st Floor Avinashi Road, Tiruppur. ..Respondents in both CMAs Common Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the award dated 07.08.2023 made in M.C.O.P.No.1714 of 2018 and M.C.O.P.No.1713 of 2018, on the file of the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Tiruppur.

For Appellants : Mr.M.Lokesh (Both CMAs)

For Respondents : Mr.G.Vasudevan (Both CMAs) for R2 for R1 – set ex-parte COMMON JUDGMENT The claimants who are the brothers and sister of the deceased Arusamy and Loganathan, aggrieved by the rejection of their claim petitions, have filed these appeals against the award passed by the Exclusive Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruppur in M.C.O.P.No.1714 of 2018 and M.C.O.P.No.1713 of 2018, dated 07.08.2023.

2.The case of the claimants is that the deceased Arusamy and Loganathan were travelling in a two wheeler on 26.5.2018 which was ridden by Loganathan and Arusamy was the pillion rider. They were travelling at Palladam-Tarapuram Road and at about 09.30 p.m., the offending vehicle which was a Car and which was coming in the opposite direction was driven in a rash and negligent manner and it hit the two wheeler as a result of which both the rider and the pillion rider sustained grievous injuries and unfortunately both of them succumbed to the injuries. It is under these circumstances, the claimants who are the brothers and sister of the deceased filed two independent claim petitions in M.C.O.P.Nos.1713 and 1714 of 2018, seeking for payment of compensation.

3.The Tribunal on considering the facts and circumstances of the case and on appreciation of oral and documentary evidence came to a conclusion that the accident had not taken place due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the 1^st respondent and the accident had taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the deceased Loganathan. Accordingly, both the claim petitions were dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals have been filed before this Court.

4.Heard Mr.M.Lokesh learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.G.Vasudevan, learned counsel for R2.

5.This Court has carefully considered the submissions made on either side and the materials available on record. This Court also carefully gone through the award passed by the Tribunal.

6.The entire case hinges upon the evidence of PW.2, RW.1 and RW.2.

PW.1 was not an eye witness in this case and she was the one who is said to have informed the police based on which an FIR came to be registered in Crime No.286 of 2018. Before going into the evidence of PW.2, RW.1 and RW.2, there is one fact which requires mention pertaining to the evidence of PW.1.

7.The Tribunal has disbelieved the evidence of PW.1 mainly on the ground that PW.1 was not an eye witness in this case and that PW.1 while giving the complainant has attributed the entire negligence regarding the accident on the deceased Loganathan. That apart, PW.1 has also mentioned the name of one Gopu as if, he informed to PW.1 about the accident and this Gopu was not even the relative of PW.1 and PW.1 has not explained as to how he came to know Gopu. PW.1 also speaks about one Loganathan as an eye witness but he was not examined as an eye witness and whereas one Senthil Kumar alone has been examined as an eye witness. That apart, the Tribunal also rejected the explanation given by PW.1 as to the circumstances under which the FIR was registered and also Ex.P.3 which was a complaint addressed subsequently to the Superintendent of Police.

8.It must be borne in mind that PW.1 was not an eye witness in this case and he was the brother of the deceased. He belongs to a rustic village and therefore, the standard