K. Kannan, J. - (1.) THE appeal is by the claimants against the dismissal of the petition for compensation when the Tribunal found that the so called admission of the involvement of the second respondent's vehicle was not true and it was brought about by collusion. The accident took place on 04.07.2007 and one of the claimants who was the son of the deceased and travelling along with his father in the motorcycle as a pillion rider had given a statement to the police on the same day that a white maruti car hit them from behind that resulted in fatal injuries to his father and injuries to himself. Nearly 2 months later on 10.09.2007, the claimants would contend that respondents 1 and 2 showed up in their house and confessed to him that the mistake was done by his driver and they sought the claimants' pardon. The claimants pardoned him and took him to the police and gave a statement on the basis of which, an additional statement was said to have been recorded by the police. In the cross -examination of the claimants, it was elicited that several other vehicles were going at the same time on the busy road and suggested to him the alleged statement said to have been made by respondents 1 and 2 confessing to the involvement of the second respondent's vehicle was not true and that it was collusive. The respondents 1 and 2 predictably filed the statement accepting the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal found the case to be too artificial that without any complaint by any other person or by any overt police investigation that led to the implication of respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 1 and 2 volunteered to go to the claimants' house and confessed to the involvement. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the petition holding the involvement of the second respondent's vehicle was not true and the so -called statement said to have been made by respondents 1 and 2 two months' later was not worthy of acceptance.
(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellants would contend that when the respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement, nothing was shown by the insurer to prove that it was collusive. Collusion is always a covert operation. It has to be inferred under the given circumstances. There is nothing unusual about the F.I.R. not disclosing the details of the registration of the vehicle. It could have happened in several situations where the first person that makes a complaint only knows about a particular accident and gives a statement of such a fact If the police undertakes an investigation and collects statement of witnesses that leads to tracking the guilty persons and police presents a challan on that basis to a criminal court, the case could be considered and the Tribunal will be fully competent to find the truth or otherwise of the contentions on the basis of the complaint and how the police investigation led to the tracking of the guilty persons. On sifting of the evidence by the Tribunal, if it has comes to the conclusion that the involvement of the vehicle had indeed been proved, there could be nothing suspicious or wrong about such an exercise. On the other hand, if it were to be contended that the person who ought to have known immediately about the accident and the details of the vehicle and when in his own statement which was the basis of F.I.R., he does not disclose the registration number and the police gets no better information for nearly 2 months, the claimants must show up with two other persons admitting to the involvement, there is a lot of scope for a suspicion of whether such involvement as stated could be acted upon or not. The world will be surely a much better place to live in, if the Gandhian trait of being truthful takes a universal human disposition. The only truth is, being untruthful is so common place that any unusual statement in court requires corroboration. These are not mere hasty generalization but experience oriented observations. If the Tribunal examining the witness states that two persons owned up to their guilt two months later on no provocation and he suspected such a statement, I will let it rest there. I have no greater tools of unravelling truth for such an unusual conduct. If the Tribunal held therefore that respondents 1 and 2 are guilty of collusion with the claimants, it had its good reason to make such observations. I am not persuaded by the arguments of the counsel that if such cases are to be dismissed, 50% of the cases will be also dismissed. This is an argument in desperation and I will not find it merit -worthy to accept. The appeal is dismissed on the above observations.;