JUDGMENT : V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. 1. These two appeals have been filed against the award, dated 28.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Thoothukudi, raising various grounds. 2. C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011 was filed by the New India Assurance Company and C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company, Thoothukudi. 3. The facts of the case filed by the claimants version are that on 20.09.2004, the deceased was travelling in a Skoda Octavia car bearing Registration No. TN-69-J-0921 belonging to one Raja Singh from Thoothukudi to Tirunelveli from East to West, abiding the Traffic Rules around 18.30 hours, nearing Vaagaikulam Airport on Tuticorin – Palayamkottai Main Road, a Mahindra and Mahindra van which came from the opposite direction from West towards East, driven by its driver by name Comniah in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the said car in which the deceased was travelling. The said Augistin sustained head injury and other injuries all over the body and immediately, he was taken to AVM Hospital, Tuticorin, where he was admitted in the Intensive Care Unit and he died, after a period of 17 days. One Raju, who was the driver, gave a complaint before the Pudukottai Police Station and a case in Crime No.501 of 2004 was registered under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) I.P.C., against the driver of Mahindra Van. 4. The appellant/second respondent-Oriental Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011 filed a counter denying the averments and would submit that it was a put up case and foisted witnesses just to hide the fact that only the deceased was driving the said vehicle in a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and due to the same, there should have been head on collusion in the other vehicle, and the police and others colluded hand in glove, fabricated the case to suit the complainant by manipulating the Observation Mahazar and fictitious 161 (3) statements to confirm the false complaint and sought for dismissal of the same. 5. 5. The appellant/fourth respondent-New India Assurance Company in C.M.A (MD) No. 974 of 2011 filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition and stated that due to the rash and negligent driving of the Mahindra Van bearing Registration No. TN-69-C-2154, coupled with the fact that the police have registered the case only against the driver of the Mahindra van, absolutely there is no reason for them to indemnify the loss claimed by the claimants and it is only the owner and the insurer of the Mahindra van, namely, the respondents 1 and 2 therein, alone are liable to pay compensation and further stated that they are not liable to pay compensation. 6. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, four witnesses viz., P.W.1 to P.W.4 were examined and twenty five documents viz., Exs.P.1 to P.25 were marked and on the side of the respondents, five witnesses viz., R.W.1 to R.W.5 were examined and six documents viz., Exs.R.1 to R.6 were marked to substantiate their cases. 7. On hearing both the parties and appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal has awarded Rs.17,60,000/- as compensation towards loss of income, apart from awarding Rs.50,000/- towards pain and sufferings, Rs.2,18,625/- towards medical bills, Rs.15,000/- towards extra nourishment and transport, Rs.20,000/- towards mental shock and agony. Further, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.15,000/- and Rs.5,000/- towards consortium and funeral expenses and Rs.30,000/- towards loss of love and affection. The total amount was rounded into Rs.21,14,000/-. 8. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/New India Assurance Company in C.M.A (MD) No. 954 of 2011 and the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 have filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011, the learned counsel for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 10. 9. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/New India Assurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011, the learned counsel for the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 and the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 to 3/claimants. 10. The claimants in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2005 has claimed that when the car was driven by the said driver-Raju, the Mahindra van's driver dashed against the car exactly at the right side of the car, where the deceased was seated and the deceased sustained head injury and immediately he was taken to AVM Hospital, Tuticorin, where he was admitted in Intensive Care Unit and the Hospital had given him treatment, but, after a prolonged period of 17 days, on 07.04.2004, the deceased died due to cardio respiratory arrest. For the accident occurred on 20.09.2004, the legal heirs of the deceased, the first respondent, who is the wife of the deceased and the second and third respondents, who are the children of the deceased Augustine, claimed a sum of Rs.59,00,000/- as compensation. The first respondent claimed that her husband was 52 years old at the time of accident and he was working as a Senior Assistant/Stores in SPIC Tuticorin for the last 30 years with Employment No. 1463 and taking note of the deceased hard work and sincerity, the Management had voluntarily offered assignment Indo-Jordon Chemical Company, Yemen, Jordan which is a joint venture company of SPIC and at the time of death, the deceased was earning a sum of Rs.1343.38 US Dollars which is equivalent to Rs.60,432/- per month in Indian currency. Since the deceased was only 52 years old at the time of death, the first respondent had applied 11' multiplier and calculated the compensation for loss of income along with funeral expenses, loss of love and affection and other expenses sought for a sum of Rs.59,00,000/- with interest from the date of accident till the date of payment. 11. The appellant/Oriental Insurance Company has filed counter in December, 2006 and an additional counter during 2008, disputed the quantum of claim made by the claimants and sought for proof for the income derived by the deceased. Apart from questioning the quantum, the Insurance Company has disputed the manner in which the alleged accident had taken place and claimed through their counter that, it is a fake accident and the claim of the claimants is not sustainable. 12. Apart from questioning the quantum, the Insurance Company has disputed the manner in which the alleged accident had taken place and claimed through their counter that, it is a fake accident and the claim of the claimants is not sustainable. 12. On perusing the evidence, it is seen that the quantum was disputed by the Insurance Company and it is to be seen whether the Tribunal has appreciated the evidence in proper perspective to come to the conclusion that the accident has occurred due to the rash and negligent act of the driver, who drove the Mahindra Van from West to East, when the deceased Skoda Car was driven from East to West travelling from Tuticorin to Tirunelveli. P.W.1, who is the wife of the deceased, has averred the manner in which the accident has occurred. 13. From the chief examination of P.W.1, where P.W.1 has submitted that “TAMIL”. In the same line, on a perusal of the Chief-examination of P.W.2- C.T. Chellapandiyan, who travelled along with the deceased on 20.09.2004 and the Skoda Car bearing Registration No. TN-69-J-0291 belonging to the said Chellapandiyan has deposed that “TAMIL” 20.09.2004 “TAMIL” TN-69-J-0291 “TAMIL” 14. On a perusal of the above deposition of P.W.1 and P.W.2 supported by Investigator's report-Ex.R.3, which was marked by the respondents, dated 12.10.2004, it is categorically clear that the deceased was seated behind the driver seat in the Skoda Car, when the alleged accident occurred on 20.09.2004 as stated by P.W.1 and P.W.2. P.W.2, who is the owner of the vehicle and who was travelling along with the deceased, was seated on the left hand side of the vehicle in the front seat, who narrated the manner in which the accident had occurred. 15. On a perusal of the evidence adduced by P.W.1 and P.W.2 and evidence of R.W.1, this Court finds that there are discrepancies in the evidence let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2. On a perusal of the Motor Vehicles Inspector's Report, dated 21.09.2004, it is seen that the alleged vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-69-J-0291 has sustained the following damages: (i) The wind screen glass, front doors, top body, radiator fan, front head lamps, gear box and engine transmission are the damages. (ii) Engine head is broken (iii) Front axil is totally damaged with steering systems (iv) Recommended for total damage. 16. (ii) Engine head is broken (iii) Front axil is totally damaged with steering systems (iv) Recommended for total damage. 16. In the same report, the damages caused to the Mahindra and Mahindra van bearing Registration No. TN-69-C-2154 is also specified and the same is as follows:- (i) Front wind screen glass, radiator, fan, front bumper, front grill and head lamps are damaged. (ii) steering joints front axle and its suspension are damaged. (iii) Front body is damaged. 17. It is seen that the second respondent has appointed a investigator and to investigate and to enquire about the accident and the said Investigator has also submitted a report which is marked as Ex.P.25 and he was examined as P.W.4. From the report, it is revealed that the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling was alleged to have dashed head on collusion with the other vehicle and both the vehicles have sustained damages only at the front side of the vehicle and no damage has been occurred on the rear side of the vehicle nor on the right hand side of the vehicle in which the deceased was travelling alleged to have having seated behind the driver. The report also states that it is due to the head on collusion, damages are occurred on both the vehicles. However, it is not clear as to how in an head on collusion, the person seated on the front side escaped even without simple injuries and the person seated behind the driver sustained injuries on frontal bone, left temporal bone, intra-cerbral hematoma and right frontal lobe, left temporal lobe, subdural hematoma in inter hemispheric fissures. 18. Under these circumstances, when the evidence was let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2 along with the documents marked as exhibits to substantiate the manner in which the accident had occurred and evidence on contrary creates a doubt about the manner of accident in which the driver of the car did not sustain any injury and the deceased who was seated just behind the driver seat died in that accident. That too, when the deceased was travelling in a sophisticated higher end car i.e., Skoda Octavia, wherein all the safety measures and specifications are in built to safe-guard the travellers in the car. Moreover, the driver of the car was not examined for the reasons best known to the claimants. That too, when the deceased was travelling in a sophisticated higher end car i.e., Skoda Octavia, wherein all the safety measures and specifications are in built to safe-guard the travellers in the car. Moreover, the driver of the car was not examined for the reasons best known to the claimants. Admittedly, the Insurance Company of both the vehicles are evasive in the responsibilities and while the second and fourth respondents have admitted that the Insurance Policy to the respective vehicles was in existence and have settled their own damages, but they have not prepared to produce those documents before the Court for the reasons best known to them. The police has not filed any materials regarding the fate of the criminal case also. 19. It is not clear as to how the deceased died, when so many injuries on his head and throughout the body without the car sustaining any damages on the right side where the deceased was seated behind the driver. It could be presumed that in an head on collusion of the vehicles travelling in high speed or even any one of the vehicle travelling in high speed dashes against another vehicle on a head on collusion, the front side of both the vehicles would have sustained severe damages and thereafter, causing damages on the rear side of the vehicle. But the damages sustained by the rear side will always be lesser than the damages sustained in the front portion of the vehicles. However, on perusal of the photographs produced by the Insurance Company regarding the manner of accident regarding vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 69-J-0291, which corroborates Ex.P.25 which is the Investigation Report filed by the claimants. There is no damage on the rear side of the vehicle. P.W.2 in his chief examination has stated that “TAMIL” 20. Even assuming taking the statement of P.W.2 in chief should also be corroborated with sufficient evidence in proof and comparing the oral evidence of P.W.2 and the documentary evidence of Ex.P.2, Ex.P.3 and Ex.P.4, it could be seen that there is a total contradiction in the statement of P.W.2, who was the owner of the vehicle and claimed to have travelled along with the deceased. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied as far as the manner in which the alleged accident has occurred. Hence, the evidence of P.W.2 cannot be relied as far as the manner in which the alleged accident has occurred. On a comparison of oral evidence as well as the documentary evidence, under any stretch of imagination, we cannot presume that the accident had occurred on a head on collusion leaving the driver and the person seated in the front side with no injuries in the entire body. But the person who has seated behind the driver seat sustained multiple injuries all over the body especially head injuries and died in the accident. 21. It could be seen from the photographs, only the front portion upto the bannet portion seems to have been damaged and the side of the vehicles are not damaged. But the counsel for the claimants would submit that the part of the upholstery broke and sharp objects had hit against the said deceased and caused head injury. This was neither pleaded nor any photographs regarding the damages to the upholstery was produced. The Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report also do not reveal regarding any such breaking of upholstery. These facts were overlooked by the learned Principal District Judge, Thoothukudi, while coming to the conclusion that the drivers of both the vehicles are equally responsible for the accident and both the vehicles have suffered damages and both the Insurance Companies have settled their claims. The finding of the Tribunal that it is a clear case that possibility of Skoda car in which the deceased was travelling was hit by the van against the portion when the deceased was sitting behind the driver is not possible in reality, as there was no damages sustained on the Skoda car on the rear side of the vehicle. The photograph would show that the Mahindra van was not at all damaged to the extent as stated by the report which is marked as Ex.P.25. 22. Under these circumstances, on any stretch of imagination, it cannot be construed that the deceased died due to the injuries sustained on the head on collusion, that too, when he was sitting on the right side of the vehicle behind the driver. It is a clear case of fake claim made by the claimants. We are not going into the manner in which the deceased could have died, may be in a same accident but in a different manner. It is a clear case of fake claim made by the claimants. We are not going into the manner in which the deceased could have died, may be in a same accident but in a different manner. However, the manner in which the claimants have claimed that the accident said to have occurred cannot hold good as evidence let in by P.W.1 and P.W.2 is not supporting the claimants regarding the manner of the accident. 23. A writ Petition in W.P.No.11280 of 2008 was filed by the Oriental Insurance Company with a prayer to transfer the case to CBCID, this Court finding overwhelming evidence and directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBCID to register a case and file a final report. Accordingly, a case in Crime No.3 of 2010 under Section 420 I.P.C was registered on 09.07.2010. 24. For the foregoing reasons, we are of the considered view that it is a fake claim and the Tribunal's reasoning has no correlation in the evidence adduced as alleged in the documentary evidence filed by either parties. The Tribunal miserably failed to give cogent reasons for arriving at the conclusion the manner in which the accident had occurred. The Tribunal has not framed its proper reasoning in support of the manner in which the accident occurred by the claimants as well as P.W.2. Under these circumstances, the entire award, dated 28.02.2011 made in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2005 is set aside. 25. In the result:- (i) C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011 filed by the appellant/New India Assurance Company and C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 filed by the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company are allowed, thereby the award made in M.C.O.P.No.66 of 2005, dated 28.02.2011 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Court, Thoothukudi is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed. (ii) In view of the dismissal of the claim made by the claimants, the appellant/New India Assurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.954 of 2011 and the appellant/Oriental Insurance Company in C.M.A(MD)No.974 of 2011 are entitled to withdraw the amount already deposited before the Tribunal, if any. No costs.