Claimants cannot pursue simultaneous claims under Sections 163(A) and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in the same petition; evidence must substantiate claims when seeking compensation.

1. The appellant Insurance Company is the second respondent in M.C.O.P.No.344 of 2001. The respondents 1 to 4 herein are the claimants. The respondents 5 and 6 are the owners of the vehicle, who were respondents 1 and 3 in M.C.O.P.No.344 of 2001.

2. The appellant challenged the order of Tribunal dated 07.08.2009 granting a total sum of Rs.6 lakhs as compensation to the respondents 1 to 4.

3. The facts of the case are as follows:
According to the respondents 1 to 4, on 06.06.2001, at about 5.30 p.m, the deceased Sekar was driving his vehicle M.80 slowly along with his friends in Kalanivaasal, Thuraiyur main road from west to east on the left hand side of the road. At that time, one mini lorry bearing Registration No. TN - 69-2302 insured with the appellant was driven in a rash and negligent manner from north to south in Thuraiyur road and hit deceased Sekar. The said Sekar suffered serious injury. The driver of the lorry ran away from the scene of accident. The deceased was given first aid in a private hospital at Pudukottai. The deceased suffered serious injuries and therefore, he was admitted in Vinothagam hospital at Thanjavur and he was given intensive treatment. In spite of the same, he died on 09.06.2001.

4. Originally, the respondents 1 to 4 impleaded only 5th respondent as first respondent stating that he was owner of the vehicle which caused accident. Subsequently, they came to know that the said vehicle was sold to 6th respondent by 5th respondent. Further, a typing error had crept in the claim petition that the date of accident was mentioned as 04.06.2001 instead of 06.06.2001. Therefore, petitions were filed for amendment and also to implead 6th respondent. The petitions were ordered and necesssay amendments were carried out.

5. The accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of respondents 5 and 6, who did not adhere to the traffic rules. The said driver only is fully responsible to the accident. A complaint was lodged on 17.6.2001 with K.Pudpatti Police Station and the same was registered as Cr.No. 93/2001. The deceased was aged 30 years and he was doing business of selling of electrical goods at K.Pudupatti. He was earning Rs.10,000/- per month. On the above facts, the respondents 1 to 4 claimed a sum of Rs.30 lakhs as compensation.

6. The appellant in the counter denied that mini lorry bearing No. T.N. 69-2302 was involved in the accident. The 5th respondent did not inform the appellant about the accident. He did not furnish the Registration Certificate, Fitness Certificate and Driving Licence. The 5th respondent on 10.2.2001 itself had sold the vehicle to 6th respondent. The 6th respondent did not inform the appellant about his purchase and did not seek transfer of ownership. The accident took place only due to the negligence of the deceased. The claim of Rs.30 lakhs by respondents 1 to 4 is without any basis and it is excessive.

7. The appellant filed additional counter statement stating that no accident took place on 04.6.2001. The accident took place only due to the act of the deceased. F.I.R was lodged after 14 days on 17.6.2001 by the brother of the deceased. Only to get compensation, the family members of the deceased implicated the vehicle of the 5th respondent in F.I.R. The 5th respondent to cheat the appellant has colluded with respondents 1 to 4.

8. The deceased was discharged from Vindothagan Hospital, Thanjavur, on 09.6.2001 against medical advise. He died on the same day. After 10 days only post mortem was done at Government Hospital, Aranthangi. The death of the deceased on 09.6.2001 is a natural death and not due to the accident.

9. At t