MANAGER, MADURAI Vs. S. AKILAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case are as follows:-

(2.) THE second respondent / Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and refuted the claim. The second respondent denied the occurrence of the accident. It was submitted that the owner of the vehicle is none other than the elder brother of the claimant. As such, both have colluded with each other and claimed compensation against the Insurance Company, which is a false claim. The second respondent further submitted that the claim is excessive and had also denied the averments in the claim regarding the age and occupation of the petitioner.

(3.) ON the side of the claimant, three witnesses had been examined and eleven documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., discharge summary, scan bills and scan reports, prescription, medical bills, case sheet, disability certificate and X-ray. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and two documents were marked, viz., case sheet and accident register.