JUDGMENT (Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, to set aside the Decree and Judgement dated 01.11.2021 made in MCOP No.101 of 2018 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Principal District and Sessions Court, Ariyalur.) 1. Aggrieved by the award passed in MCOP No.101 of 2018 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Principal District cum Sessions Judge Ariyalur, the Transport Corporation is the appellant before this Court. The facts in brief are as follows:- 2. The Respondents herein who are the mother and brother of one Ayyanar had filed the above MCOP claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.20,00,000/- for the death of the said Ayyanar in a road accident on 06.10.2017. It is their case that on 06.10.2017 at about 8.15 Pm the deceased Ayyanar was waiting at the bus stop opposite to Thirumanoor Union Office to board the bus to go to his village at Karaivetipardur. At that time, the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation, bearing Registration No. TN 49 N 1366, driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and proceeding from south to north dashed against the deceased Ayyanar who was waiting at the bus stop. He was rushed to the Primary Health Centre at Thirumanoor where he received First Aid and thereafter he was sent to the Government Hospital at Thiruvaiyaru where he succumbed his injuries. It is the contention of the claimants that the said Ayyanar was aged about 28 years, working in a private cotton mill as a supervisor and also carrying on agricultural activities earning a monthly income of about Rs.50,000/- They, therefore, sought for compensation from the appellant/Transport Corporation. 3. The appellant/Transport Corporation had filed a counter stating that the records maintained by them does not reflect the involvement of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 49 N 1366 in a road accident on 06.10.2013. It is their further contention that the Thirumanoor Police have registered a case in FIR No.251 of 2017 on 07.10.2017 that the deceased had been hit by an unknown vehicle. The FIR also reflects that the said Ayyanar was in an intoxicated state. The appellant/Transport Corporation, therefore, contended that they were not liable to compensate the respondents since their vehicle was not involved in an accident. The FIR also reflects that the said Ayyanar was in an intoxicated state. The appellant/Transport Corporation, therefore, contended that they were not liable to compensate the respondents since their vehicle was not involved in an accident. The Tribunal below by its award dated 01.11.2021 held negligence upon the appellant/Transport Corporation based on the fact that the police had subsequently identified the vehicle which was involved in the accident, arrested the driver of the vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 49 N 1366. Thereafter the Bus was also subject to the motor vehicle inspection which would clearly show that the said bus was involved in the accident. That apart, the Tribunal has relied upon the evidence of P.W.2 who is stated to be the eye witness. The Tribunal also drew an adverse inference from the fact that the appellant/ Transport Corporation has not made available the trip sheet for the date 06.10.2017 in respect of the bus bearing registration No.TN-49-N-1366. Therefore, the Tribunal has proceeded to pass an award for a sum of Rs.11,01,000/-. Aggrieved by the said award the appellant/Transport Corporation is before this Court. 4. Heard both the counsels. 5. The admitted facts in the case is that the deceased Ayyanar had been hit by a vehicle which caused grievous injuries to him and as a result of which he had passed away. In Ex.P.1, FIR which was lodged on the next day at 8 O' clock in the morning of 07.10.2017 on the basis of the complaint given by the paternal uncle of the deceased Ayyanar, the details of the accused vehicle has been described as an "unknown vehicle". 6. The complainant in Ex.P.1, Ayyamperumal would submit that he has given the complaint on the basis of the information given to him by the deceased Ayyanar at the hospital. According to this complaint the deceased Ayyanar was crossing the road from east to west to wait at the Thirumanoor Union Office bus stop to board the bus and while he was crossing the road an unknown vehicle hit him. Ayyamperumal would submit that as soon as he had received the information about the accident he and one Selvaraj son of Sellapillai and Chellapillai son of Palanisamy had gone to the hospital the next day where this information was given to them by Ayyanar. Ayyamperumal would submit that as soon as he had received the information about the accident he and one Selvaraj son of Sellapillai and Chellapillai son of Palanisamy had gone to the hospital the next day where this information was given to them by Ayyanar. Ex.P.3 has been introduced thereafter which is a letter stated to be written by one Rajavel (deceased's brother) to the DIG, Trichy. The letter does not contain any proof of the same having been sent to the addressee. It is in this letter that for the first time the involvement of the appellant's/ Transport Corporation's bus with the number of bus has been given. In this complaint which is dated 12.10.2017, nearly 5 days after the lodging of the FIR, it is stated that on the date of the accident Chellapillai son of Palanisamy, Prabhu son of Selvaraj and Ranjith son of Muthaiyan were present at the bus stop. In the letter (Ex.P.3), the said Rajavel would submit that the persons belonging to his village who saw the accident had given the complaint to the Thirumanoor police station on the very same day informing them that the bus Route No.70, bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1366 has caused the accident. This letter does not indicate that it has been received by the DIG. Further, none of the persons named in this letter have given the FIR. The letter also does not refer to the complaint dated 07.10.2017 given by Ayyamperumal which was the basis for the registration of the FIR especially when the complaint has been given by none else than the paternal uncle of the deceased Ayyanar. 7. The Motor Vehicle Inspection has been done on 11.12.2017 when the accident had taken place on 07.10.2017. The Tribunal appears to be in a hurry to implicate the appellant's/Transport Corporation's vehicle in the accident. This is evident from the fact that the Tribunal would observe that P.W.3 in his evidence has stated that the driver of the bus has been arrested and had been released on bail. Such a statement does not find a place in the deposition of P.W.3. On the contrary, P.W.3 has stated as follows:- 8. A reading of this would clearly shows that there is no reference to any bail application. Such a statement does not find a place in the deposition of P.W.3. On the contrary, P.W.3 has stated as follows:- 8. A reading of this would clearly shows that there is no reference to any bail application. The Tribunal has ignored the evidence of R.W.1 and R.W.2 who are the driver and conductor respectively of the bus who have both clearly and categorically stated that their bus was not involved in any accident and that they have not been arrested. R.W.3, a regular passenger of this bus has adduced evidence which has not been considered by the Tribunal below. Even the eye witness who has been examined on the side of the petitioners would admit that he has not given the complaint and neither has he taken the deceased to the hospital. This also proves that the contents of the letter Ex.P.3, letter where Rajavel would state that the persons who stood in the bus stop belonging to the village of the deceased had given the complaint on the very same day is false. Further, his statement has also not been taken by the police authorities, therefore, his presence at the scene of accident is suspect. 9. On the contrary, the evidence of R.W.3 would indicate that this is the only bus that takes him home and the said bus plies to and fro only once in a day; once journey in the morning and one in the evening. The witness would state that he is an employee in a Cafeteria close to the bus stand at Thirumanoor and that he is in the habit of boarding this bus everyday. The bus stand where the accident is alleged to have taken place is the one after the stop where this witness boards the bus. Therefore, his evidence cannot be ignored as the same has also not been rebutted in the cross examination. It is also seen from the evidence of P.W.3 that the final report has not been filed till the date of witness entering the box and he has also admitted that the original FIR describes the offending vehicle as an "unknown vehicle". In fact, in the FIR the complainant does not even state that the vehicle which is involved in the accident is a bus and that too the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. In fact, in the FIR the complainant does not even state that the vehicle which is involved in the accident is a bus and that too the bus belonging to the appellant/Transport Corporation. If the bus of the Transport Corporation had been the cause of the accident, the vehicle is so prominent that people would not have missed describing the same. That apart, R.W.3's evidence indicates that this bus bearing Route No.70 and bearing Registration No.TN-49-N-1366 comes once in the morning and and returns in the evening. Therefore by reason of the bus coming only twice in a day, the same would be strikingly noticeable and therefore, the fact that the FIR described the vehicle as an unknown one has to be necessarily taken to be true and the introduction of the appellant's/Transport Corporation's bus is only an afterthought and an attempt to make a fortune out of a misfortune. 10. Further the accident has alleged to have taken place near the bus stop, if the vehicle really was the route bus then it would have slowed down when it was entering the bus stop and would not be driven rashly and negligently as alleged in the claim petition. 11. Therefore, on a conjoint examination of all these evidences I can only come to the irresistible conclusion that the bus of the appellant/ Transport Corporation was not involved in the accident and it has been introduced for obtaining a compensation. In the result the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the award of the Tribunal is set aside. No costs. Consequently, the connection Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.