(1.) The Insurance Company has come forward with this appeal challenging the Award dated 29.12.2005 made in MCOP No. 498 of 2003 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding a sum of Rs. 86,960/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the claimant/first respondent herein in the alleged accident that took place on 23.3.2002.
(2.) According to the learned Counsel for the insurance company/appellant, the accident itself is a bogus one and consequently, the claim petition is not maintainable. The appellant would contend that the claimant claimed as if he was injured in the road accident when he was walking in the road. It was also claimed that he was admitted in the Ramachandra hospital, Porur and for the injuries sustained in the alleged accident, he has claimed compensation. According to the counsel for the appellant in the discharge summary, which has been produced by the claimant, it is very clearly stated that the claimant was a passenger in the Auto and he fell down from the Auto thereby, he sustained injury. Since the vehicle in which the claimant traveled is a goods carrier and he will not be entitled to claim any compensation, he had set up this vehicle namely Auto to contend as if when he was walking in the road, he was hit by the auto and sustained injuries. Even in the cross examination, the claimant himself would state that the time of accident was 2.30 pm but in the FIR, which was given after two days from the date of accident, the time was mentioned as 5.30 pm, but by 4.00 pm, the claimant was in Ramachandra hospital as In-Patient. Therefore, the main contention of the Insurance company is that the claimant, who traveled in a goods carrier and sustained injuries is not entitled to any amount as compensation. In fact, in the accident register, it was very clearly stated that the accident took place on 23.3.2002 at about 2.30 pm near Pattabiramapuram and the patient was conscious at the time of accident. However, conveniently, the original accident register was neither produced nor marked and discharge summary alone was marked.
(3.) In fact the learned Counsel for the Insurance company/appellant, at the time of argument, produced the copy of the accident register to substantiate the false case projected by the claimant. Even in the counter filed before the court below, they have very clearly stated that the accident did not happen as mentioned in the claim petition or even if the accident took place as stated so, the vehicle involved is not the vehicle as projected by the claimant. The alleged Vehicle could not be there because it is a goods carrier. The version of the Claimant itself would prove that he was a passenger in the auto and fell from auto. Hence, the Insurance company has taken the defence that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. Further, the contents of FIR, which was given after two days, would categorically indicate that the claim itself is bogus claim as against the Insurance company. Even though there was an accident in which the claimant might have sustained injury, they are not liable to pay compensation inasmuch as the claimant sustained injuries while traveling in a goods carrier.