COMMON ORDER

One of the oldest appeals relating to a motor accidents claim has come enlivened to see the light of the day by being listed before this Court and also the counsel for either side actively participating in the adjudication of the same this Court, with great alacrity is doubly inclined to take up the same together and dispose it of by this common order.

2. While C.M.A. No.1840/2004 has been filed by the insurance company challenging the compensation awarded as unjust, arbitrary and illegal, C.M.A. No.2774/2004 has been filed by the claimants, viz., the legal heirs of the deceased, seeking enhancement of compensation by assailing the judgment and decree dated 9.10.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chennai in M.C.O.P. No.5126/2000.

3. For the sake of convenience, the appellants in the respective appeal will be referred to as insurance company and claimants, who are in turn respondents in the other appeals.

4. The admitted case of the parties is that Thangasamy, the deceased, who is survived by his legal heirs, viz., the appellants in C.M.A. No.2774/2004, at the relevant point of time was aged about 45 years and was employed as a Loadman in Priya Gas Company and earning a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month and a daily batta of Rs.200/-. The deceased, on 16.3.2000, at about 12.30 hours, when riding his bicycle near Madras Refineries Ltd., at Manali, the tipper lorry, bearing Regn. No.TN-22-B-9077, driven in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the cycle as a result of which the deceased sustained multiple injuries. The deceased was admitted at the Government Stanley Hospital from where he was discharged and readmitted at Government General Hospital, Chennai, where he succumbed to the injuries on 19.3.2000. On the basis of the written complaint given by P.W.2, an eye-witness to the occurrence, who had taken the deceased to the hospital and admitted him, a case in Crime No.143/2000 was registered by H-2, Manali Police Station against the driver of the tipper lorry. Aggrieved by the loss of the bread winner of the family, the appellants in CMA No.2774/2004, have filed the claim petition seeking compensation in a sum of Rs.9 Lakhs, to be paid jointly and severally, by the owner and the insurer of the lorry.

5. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-9. On the side of the insurance company, three witnesses were examined as R.W.s 1 to 3 and Exs.R-1 to R-6 were marked. The Tribunal, considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, awarded compensation, in favour of the claimants, in a sum of Rs.3,91,800/-. Aggrieved by the said compensation awarded, the insurance company as well as the claimants have preferred the respective appeals, the insurance company questioning the compensation and the claimants, seeking enhancement. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the whole genesis of the case bristles with fraud committed to cheat the insurance company. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the FIR, which was registered by P.W.2, who is the eye witness to the occurrence, at the earliest point of time, reveals that the lorry number is mentioned as TN- 04-C-9669, but thereafter, the lorry number had been corrected as TN-22-B- 9077. It is the submission of the learned counsel that for the purpose of aiding the claimants, the lorry number has been corrected to show as TN-22- B-9077. It is the submission of the learned counsel that the claimants, in collusion with the police authorities, having found that the lorry bearing Regn. No.TN-04-AC-9669 being not insured or having a lapsed insurance policy, for the purpose of claiming insurance, had interpolated the FIR to show the lorry number as TN-22-B-9077, which is said to have a valid insurance.

7. It is therefore the submission of the learned counsel that the said fraud is writ large on all the documents right from the FIR to the charge sheet, which is inclusive of the