SOMASUNDARI Vs. NANDAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These twin appeals are preferred against the award passed in MCOP.No.970 of 2002 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court-I), Coimbatore. CMA.No.2055 of 2005 is filed by the claimants before the Tribunal seeking enhancement of compensation. CMA.No.2763 of 2006 is filed by the Insurance Company, which was arrayed as the third respondent before the Tribunal and it seeks to absolve itself of the liability fastened on it on the ground that involvement of the alleged offending vehicle that it had insured in the accident is suspect.

(2.) As per the facts made known to the Tribunal by the claimants were that, on 08.03.2002 while the victim was travelling in his motorcycle, he was fatally knocked down by a car bearing registration No.TSR-1951 that was driven by the first respondent belonging to the second respondent and insured with the United India Insurance Co., (the third respondent before the Tribunal & the appellant in CMA 2763/2006). Seeking compensation, his widow and son moved the Tribunal contending that the victim was working as a Quality Tester in a Milk Society and was earning Rs.7,800.00 per month and sought a compensation of Rs.15,00,000.00, whereas the Tribunal has passed an award of Rs.3,90,000.00 payable with interest at 9% per annum. Before the Tribunal, the Insurance Company inter alia pleaded that the car that was said to have been responsible for the accident was not involved in it and it was planted by the claimants with a sole objective of sustaining a claim petition. In short, it contended that it was a fake claim. And to investigate the same, it preferred complaint to the police that led to registering Ext.R-6 FIR. CMA 2763/2006

(3.) The point involved is whether the evidence available on record preponderate a probability that the involvement of the car alleged is believable? Here the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company's argument was candid and straight forward: First, in Ext.P-1 FIR which was registered to investigate the criminal angle of the accident involved in this case states that the victim was knocked down by an unknown vehicle. In other words it was a hit and run case. The accident had taken place on 08-03-2002. And, nothing was heard about the first respondent driver then. However, quite dramatically, on 13-08-2002, some five months after the accident, he surfaced to surrender, pleaded guilty, was sentenced and paid fine. A clueless case suddenly was brought alive not due to any investigative agency cracking the case but due to the voluntary surrender of the accused and this is suspicious. Hence the insurance company had preferred a complaint to investigate into its suspicion and Ext.R-6 FIR was registered.