(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 16.11.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Sivakasi and allow this civil miscellaneous appeal.)

1. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.107 of 2006 dated 16.11.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Sivakasi.

2. The appellant / insurer, who was mulcted with liability to pay compensation of Rs.2,46,940/- (Rupees Two Lakhs Forty Six Thousand Nine Hundred and Forty only) with interest at 7.5% per annum and costs to the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants for the death of one Seenivasagam, consequent to an accident occurred on 16.07.2006, challenged the liability fixed by the Tribunal.

3. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties hereinafter will be referred to as per their status / ranking in the Tribunal.

4. The case of the claimants is that on 16.07.2006 at about 09.45 p.m., the deceased was riding his Bajaj M 80 vehicle bearing Registration No.TN-67-R-6826 on Sivakasi to Virudhunagar bye pass road at Sivakasi Town, that a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-C-3114 was parked carelessly and wrongly in the centre of the said road without putting any signal or lighting the danger red light or any other indication, that the deceased without noticing the lorry dashed against the lorry and fell down and as a result of which, he sustained serious injuries on his body and despite treatment, succumbed to the injuries on 17.07.2006 and that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness and complete negligence on the part of the driver of the lorry.

5. The first respondent / owner of the lorry has taken a stand that his lorry was parked on the left side of the east west road near Srinivasa mess with lighting of red lights on front as well as back side of the lorry, that the deceased, who drove his two wheeler in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the back side of the lorry and invited the accident, that the lorry driver was no way responsible for the accident and that therefore, the first respondent is not liable for the claim.

6. The second respondent / insurer has taken a defence that the first respondent's lorry was not at all involved in the accident, that subsequently the lorry was implicated fraudulently, that the first respondent's lorry registration number was not at all mentioned in the FIR registered and moreover, the deceased was added as an accused in the FIR and that therefore, the second respondent is not liable for the claim.

7. During trial, the claimants examined the first claimant as P.W.1 and 2 other witnesses as P.W.2 and P.W.3 and exhibited 6 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P6. The respondents have adduced neither oral nor documentary evidence.

8. The learned trial Judge, upon considering the evidence both oral and documentary and on hearing the arguments of both the sides, passed the impugned award dated 16.11.2011 holding that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident and directed the second respondent to pay compensation of Rs.2,46,940/- with interest and costs. Aggrieved by the impugned award, the insurer has preferred the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant / second respondent would mainly contend that the vehicle owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent was not at all involved in the accident, that FIR was lodged on the basis of the complaint given by the deceased's brother and in that FIR, the deceased was shown as the accused, that the first respondent's lorry was not at all shown in the FIR and moreover, the complaint itself was lodged only on 07.08.2006 with inordinate delay, that the claimants have not shown that the first respondent's lorry alone was involved in the accident and that therefore, the finding of the Tribunal in this regard is liable to be interfered with.

10. As rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants, an FIR cannot be treated as an encyclopedia containing every minute detail of the occurrence. The primary object of an FIR is only to set the criminal law in motion. Hence, the mere non-mentioning of the lorry number in the FIR, by itself, cannot be taken as a ground to hold that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident. Moreover, P.W.2, examined on the side of the claimants, has clearly deposed about the involvement of the first respondent's lorry in the accident and, significantly, his evidence in the cross-examination was not at all challenged on that aspect. It is also pertinent to note that no contra evidence was adduced by the respondents to substantiate their defence.

11. Admittedly, the lorry bearing Registration No.TN-72-C-3114 was owned by the first respondent and the same was insured with the second respondent and that the policy was in force on the date of accident.

12. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / second respondent, there was no reference in the FIR regarding the involvement of the lorry owned by the first respondent. However, P.W.2 has categorically deposed that the said lorry was involved in the accident, that the lorry was parked in the middle of the road and that the negligence on the part of the lorry driver was the cause for the accident. Though P.W.2 was subjected to cross-examination, his evidence with regard to the negligence and carelessness on the part of the lorry driver remained unshaken.

13. More importantly, as rightly contended by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3 / claimants, neither the owner of the vehicle nor the insurer has chosen to adduce any evidence.

14. Though the first respondent has contended that his lorry was parked on the left side of the road after switching on the front and rear danger lights and that the deceased alone was responsible for the accident, neither the first respondent nor the second respondent has taken any steps to examine the lorry driver in support of the said defence.

15. On considering the entire evidence available on record, the Tribunal has rightly come to a decision that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness and negligence on the part of the lorry driver and that therefore the second respondent is liable to pay the compensation.

16. The second respondent has not specifically disputed the quantum of compensation. Considering the fact that the accident had occurred on 16.07.2006, the compensation awarded at Rs.2,46,940/-cannot said to be excessive and the same appears to be just and reasonable.

17. Except the above, the second respondent has not canvassed any other reason or ground to impugn the award. Consequently, this Court concludes that the appeal is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Considering the other facts and circumstances of the case, this Court further decides that the parties are to be directed to bear their own costs.

18. In the result, this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed.

Parties are directed to bear their own costs.