Judgment :- 1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:- The respondent / claimant was travelling in an auto rickshaw on 28.06.1991, at about 6 p.m., on the Guindy Raj Bhavan Main Road and at that point of time, a van bearing registration No.TMO-4309 dashed against the auto rickshaw, as a result, the claimant sustained injuries. Hence, the claim petition has been filed against the owner and insurer of the offending vehicle and compensation of Rs.1,62,800/- was claimed along with interest. 2. The Insurance Company had filed a counter statement and resisted the claim petition. The respondent denied the averments in the claim that the accident was caused by the driver of the van. Actually, the van has not been involved in the said accident. The complaint has not been levelled on the same day but the complaint has been lodged on 05.07.1991, stating that an unknown van caused the said accident. The claimant had not furnished the particulars of the offending vehicle. The respondent also denied the averments in the claim regarding the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and medical expenses. 3. On scrutiny of the averments of both parties, the Tribunal had framed two issues, viz., "(i) Whether the first respondent's driver had committed the accident in a rash and negligent manner? (ii) whether the claimant is entitled to receive compensation?" 4. On the side of the claimant, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and 17 documents were marked, viz., F.I.R., doctor's prescription letter, Vijaya Hospital admission card, medical discharge summary, medical bills series, Dr.Mohan Das's prescription letter, medical records relating to medical treatment given by Dr. Bhaskar, letter given by Neurology doctor, Vellore hospital medical records, medical reports given by Dr.Jeganathan and Dr.Soundararajan, acupuncture treatment particulars, lodging bills, X-ray and police investigation notices. On the side of the respondents, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2, viz., claim investigator and assistant manager respectively and one document was marked viz., inspection report. 5. P.W.1 had adduced evidence that he is aged about 56 years and was earning Rs.5,000/- per month through his avocation as an advocate and was also earning Rs.30,000/- per annum through cultivation. He further stated that on 28.06.1991, at about 5.45 p.m., he was travelling in an auto rickshaw on the Guindy Main Road and at that time a standard 20 van bearing registration No.TMO-4309 dashed against the auto rickshaw. He further stated that on 28.06.1991, at about 5.45 p.m., he was travelling in an auto rickshaw on the Guindy Main Road and at that time a standard 20 van bearing registration No.TMO-4309 dashed against the auto rickshaw. He further adduced evidence that he had sustained multiple bone fracture injuries on his forehead, right shoulder and around the right eye and he had undergone treatment at various private hospitals for a long period. Supporting his evidence, he had marked the above mentioned documents. 6. R.W.1, Investigation Officer attached to the Insurance Company had adduced evidence that on the instigation of the claimant, the accident case had been registered on the file of Traffic Investigation Officer. Further, the claimant himself had furnished the documents relating to the said van. R.W.1 further stated that the criminal case had been registered and as per the ingredients of the F.I.R., the vehicle is mentioned as "unknown vehicle". Subsequently, the criminal case has not been proceeded with and the case was closed. R.W.2 had adduced evidence that the said van had not been involved in the said accident. Supporting his evidence, the inspection report has been filed. 7. On considering the evidence from both sides and on hearing the arguments of the learned counsels on either side, the Tribunal had awarded a sum of Rs.76,500/-as compensation, to the claimant, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 8. Against the award and decree, the appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company. 9. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently argued that the vehicle, viz., the van bearing registration No.TMO-4309 had not been involved in the accident. As per the contentions of the claimant, the accident took place on 28.06.1991, but the F.I.R. has been filed on 05.07.1991 as an after thought. The claimant being a lawyer created documents and claimed compensation against the insurance Company. As per F.I.R., it has been mentioned that an unknown vehicle was involved in the accident and subsequently, the criminal case was also closed and as such it is evident that the claim was a fake claim. The learned counsel further contended that the doctor was not examined and disability certificate was also not produced. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the impugned award. Actually, the claimant had not furnished the vehicle particulars, owner particulars, driver's particulars and insurance particulars pertaining to the offending vehicle. The learned counsel further contended that the doctor was not examined and disability certificate was also not produced. Therefore, there is a lacuna in the impugned award. Actually, the claimant had not furnished the vehicle particulars, owner particulars, driver's particulars and insurance particulars pertaining to the offending vehicle. Hence, the learned counsel entreats the Court to set-aside the award passed by the Tribunal. 10. The learned counsel for the claimant contended that the claimant had sustained multiple grievous injuries in the said accident and he had become unconscious. After the accident all were concentrating on medical treatment to the claimant. Therefore, the complaint had been lodged after one week. On the strength of the complaint, the traffic investigation officer had registered a criminal case and traced out the offending vehicle and also collected entire particulars viz., driver's particulars, owner's particulars, vehicle particulars, insurance particulars and then the criminal case had been filed. In order to prove the accident, F.I.R., medical records have been marked before the Tribunal as exhibits and as such, the said case was proved. The learned counsel further contended that the claimant had undergone treatment including acupuncture treatment at hospitals at various places, viz, Vijaya Hospital, Chennai, Vellore Hospital. The Tribunal had not granted adequate compensation under the head of medical expenses. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had stated that the claim was a fake one, but this contention is nothing but a hypothetical theory which has not been supported by any documentary evidence. The F.I.R. has been registered by the traffic investigation officer, who is the competent person attached to the Police Department of this state and the said F.I.R is existing. Further, the accident took place on the public road and also in the heart of the city which has been witnessed by the public and as such, the question of fake claim does not arise in the instant case. Even though, the doctors had not examined, the relevant medical records have been marked before the Tribunal and the nature of injuries, mode of treatment, period of treatment etc have been well established. As such, the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the offending vehicle had been insured with the appellant herein and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the said compensation. There is absolutely no lacuna in the impugned order. As such, the case has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The learned counsel further submitted that the offending vehicle had been insured with the appellant herein and therefore, the appellant is liable to pay the said compensation. There is absolutely no lacuna in the impugned order. Hence, the learned counsel entreats this Court to dismiss the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company contended that the original claimant had expired and as such, the legal-heirs are not entitled to receive compensation. However, the learned counsel wants to bring the legal-heirs on record in order to proceed with the appeal. In reply, the learned counsel for the claimant stated that while the appeal was pending, the claimant had expired and therefore, the legal-heirs are entitled to receive compensation. 12. On verifying the facts and circumstances of the case and arguments advanced by the learned counsels on either side and on perusing the impugned award of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any shortcomings in the conclusion arrived at pertaining to negligence and liability and quantum of compensation. This Court's further view is that as per the records, it is seen that the accident took place on the Main Road at Guindy and it was witnessed by the general public.Therefore, the accident is an admitted fact. Regarding nature of injuries sustained by the claimant, the claimant had produced medical records which had been issued by the hospital authorities. It discloses the nature of injuries, mode of treatment and period of treatment. This Court's further view is that the learned counsel for the Insurance Company had raised a point that the claim was a fake one, but the Insurance Company had not initiated any legal action separately against the claimant, driver, owner of the offending vehicle and the traffic investigating officer who is the authorized person attached to the police department to prove their contention. It is evident that due to the accident the claimant had lost his mental and physical balance and that only after receiving adequate medical treatment, his health had been restored to normal and as such, valid reasons had been given for the delay in filing the F.I.R. As per medical records, the claimant had sustained grievous injuries and he was a practicing lawyer and therefore, the quantum of compensation is not on the higher side. 13. 13. As per the Court's records it is seen that this Court directed the appellant to deposit the entire compensation amount along with interest and also permitted the claimant to withdraw 60% of the deposited amount. Now, it is open to the legal-heirs of the (deceased) claimant to withdraw the balance compensation amount with accrued interest thereon lying in the credit of M.C.O.P.No.1885 of 1993, on the file of Second Judge of Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai-1, after filing a Memo, along with a copy of this order and on producing the legal-heir certificate before the Tribunal. The learned judge shall disburse the compensation amount at once and apportion the award amount appropriately among the legal-heirs of the claimant. 14. In the result, the above appeal is dismissed. Consequently, the order passed in M.C.O.P.No.1885 of 1993, on the file of Second Judge of Small Causes Court, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chennai-1, dated 17.08.2001 is confirmed. There is no order as to costs.