Claimants must prove vehicle involvement by preponderance of probability; eyewitness recantation and absent registration number absolve corporation of liability.

COMMON JUDGMENT

The present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the cross objection have been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 05.02.2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanchipuram (District Court-II, Kanchipuram) in M.C.O.P.No.447 of 2013 by the respondent and the claimants respectively.

2. The facts giving rise to the present lis is that the deceased, Mr.

Santhosh Kumar, aged about 20 years and employed as a Supervisor in a private company at Sriperumbudur, met with a fatal road accident on 19.07.2013 .On the said date, the deceased was riding his motorcycle from his residence towards Sriperumbudur Bazaar, at a normal speed, observing all the necessary traffic rules and regulations. At about 10.00 p.m., near Mayura Hotel on Gandhi Road within, Sriperumbudur limits, a Corporation bus bearing Route No. 76C registration number of which is unknown, proceeding from Kanchipuram to Chennai, was driven in a rash and negligent manner and hit the deceased from behind, causing a fatal accident. A criminal case was registered against the unidentified bus by Padalam Police Station in Crime No. 549 of 2013 under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC. The legal heirs of the deceased filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P. No. 447 of 2013 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kancheepuram, seeking compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- with interest.

3. The 1^st and 2^nd petitioners in the claim petition are the parents of the deceased, and the 3^rd petitioner is the minor brother of the deceased, represented by his father, the 2^nd petitioner. The respondent is the Transport Corporation operating Route No. 76C bus. A Claim has been made that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Route No. 76C bus. Reliance was placed on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2011 ACJ 926, along with other judgments of various High Courts. Its contended that since the said bus belongs to the respondent Corporation, it is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the petitioners. On the contrary, the respondent submitted that the petitioners failed to mention the registration number of the vehicle, and even the FIR does not bear the registration number. The respondent further maintained that there is no record of the said accident and that it has been unnecessarily impleaded as a party.

4. In order to prove their respective contentions, both parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The petitioners examined three witnesses, namely, the 1st petitioner examined as PW1, Mr. Duraimurugan, an eyewitness to the accident examined as PW2, and Mr. Irudikesavan, Special Inspector of Sriperumbudur who has been examined as PW3 and further had marked seven documents as Exs. P1 to P7. On the other hand, the respondent examined Mr.

Veerabathiran, Senior Assistant of the respondent Corporation as RW1.

5. The learned Claims Tribunal, after hearing both sides and upon perusing the oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the accident was solely due to the rash and negligent act of the driver of the respondent Corporation’s bus bearing Route No. 76C. The Tribunal further applying the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case to the instant case had determined the quantum of compensation payable to the petitioners as Rs.5,50,000/-. Accordingly, by Award and decree dated 05.02.2015, the learned Claims Tribunal held that the Respondent Corporation is liable to pay a compensation of Rs.5,50,000/- to the petitioners, together with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the respondent has filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court challengi