DIRECTOR DIRECTOR OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT Vs. MADURAMBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. The appeal itself taken up for final hearing.

(2.) THE appeal is preferred by the appellant against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.01.2004 made in MACTOP No,572 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, (Principal Judge) Pondicherry.

(3.) HEARD the counsel. On the side of the claimant, P.Ws.1 and 2 were examined and documents Exs.A1 to A6 were marked. P.W.1 is the wife of the deceased/first claimant. P.W.2 is one Mr. Dhatchanamoorthy, who is the eyewitness of the accident. Ex.A.1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Ex.A2 is the copy of the Accident Inspection Report issued by the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector. Ex.A.3 is the copy of the Registration Certificate issued by the Assistant Registering Authority, Chennai. Ex.A.4 is the copy of the driving license. Ex.A.5 is the copy of the postmortem report. Ex.A6 is the identity card of the deceased. On the side of the appellant, no one was examined and no document was marked to support their claim. After considering the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal had given a categorical finding that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Tata Sumo and the finding is based on valid materials and evidence.