JUDGMENT (Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to modify and refix the award passed in MCOP.No.1179 of 2012 dated 27.04.2015 on the file of the IV Additional District Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Madurai by and directing the 2nd respondent to pay compensation.) 1. The appeal has been filed by the claimants challenging the exoneration of the insurance company by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP.No.1179 of 2012. 2. The claimants have contended that the deceased was travelling as a pillion rider in a two wheeler driven by the first respondent on 10.03.2012 at about 5.00 p.m. The driver of the vehicle had lost his control due to rash and negligent driving and the deceased and the first respondent were thrown away and sustained injuries. The pillion rider sustained serious head injury and he was initially treated at a private hospital in Madurai and later shifted to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai on 10.03.2012 where had passed away on 13.04.2012. 3. According to the claimants, the deceased was employed in Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and hence, he was treated as a paid patient in Government Hospital. The accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent and uncontrol driving of the first respondent. Since the deceased was in the hospital for nearly a month, they were concentrating to save the life of the deceased person and they did not lodge a complaint immediately. After the death, a complaint was lodged before the police authorities on 13.04.2012 in Crime No.141 of 2012. 4. According to the claimants, the deceased was a Mazdoor in electricity board and he was earning not less than Rs.15,000/- per month and had he been alive, he would have got more promotions as wireman and thereafter as foreman. He had further contended that the deceased had left his wife, minor daughter, widowed mother and three younger brothers and one elder brother.According to the claimants, the vehicle belonging to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent insurance company. The claimants prayed for a sum of Rs.32,50,000/- as compensation. 5. The first respondent had filed a counter contending that the deceased was the pillion rider and he was driving the two wheeler at that point of time and due to the fact that he lost control of the vehicle, the accident had taken place. The claimants prayed for a sum of Rs.32,50,000/- as compensation. 5. The first respondent had filed a counter contending that the deceased was the pillion rider and he was driving the two wheeler at that point of time and due to the fact that he lost control of the vehicle, the accident had taken place. He had further contended that he was having effective and valid driving license at the relevant point of time and the vehicle is insured with the second respondent. 6. The second respondent/insurance company had filed a counter contending that the F.I.R has been lodged belatedly after a period of 32 days from the date of alleged occurance. They have further contended that when the deceased was originally admitted to Vijaya Hospital, Madurai, there is no reference about RTA (Road Traffic Accident) and the vehicle number was also not informed to the hospital authorities. It has been contended that the respondent apprehend that the petitioner and the owner of the two wheeler have colluded with an idea of claiming compensation from the insurance company. The insurance company had further questioned the quantum of compensation. 7. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence produced on either side, arrived at a finding that the involvement of the vehicle and the injuries and the death of the deceased person are only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. However, the Tribunal proceeded to give a finding that there is a delay in lodging the F.I.R and there is a reference about the bicycle in the involvement of the accident in Exhibit P14 which is the treatment details of Vijaya Hospital. The Tribunal was not inclined to accept the evidence of the first respondent and thereafter, proceeded to hold that the manipulation of the records cannot be ruled out when the parties were not come to the Court with clean hands and specific pleadings. 8. The Tribunal further found that the first respondent namely the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation and exonerated the insurance company. The Tribunal proceeded to fix the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,39,288/-. This award has been challenged by the claimants particularly the exoneration of the insurance company. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants had contended as follows: (i). The accident has taken place at about 5.00 p.m on 10.03.2012. The Tribunal proceeded to fix the quantum of compensation of Rs.25,39,288/-. This award has been challenged by the claimants particularly the exoneration of the insurance company. 9. The learned counsel for the appellants/ claimants had contended as follows: (i). The accident has taken place at about 5.00 p.m on 10.03.2012. Immediately the deceased was rushed to Vijaya Hospital and he was discharged on 11.03.2012 and referred to Government Rajaji Hospital Madurai. This is evident from Exhibit P14. (ii). From 11.03.2012, he was admitted in the Government Hospital and he passed away on 13.04.2012. Being a Government Servant, he was treated as a paid patient in Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai and receipts were issued for such payments and they were marked as Exhibit P11. (iii). Exhibits P14 and P11 will clearly indicate that immediately after the accident, the deceased was admitted to a private hospital and thereafter, he was referred to Government Rajaji Hospital, Madurai. He was an inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital from 11.03.2012. Therefore, this is fault on the part of the hospital authorities in not informing the police officials about to the road traffic accident. (iv). Exhibits P14 and P15 issued by the Vijaya Hospital will indicate that the injuries were sustained due to the road accident. Therefore, any fault on the part of the Hospital authority for not informing the police officials cannot be attributed to the family of the deceased. (v). The insurance company has mainly contended that there is a collusion between vehicle owner and the deceased in filing a claim petition. Mere pleading of collusion is not enough unless it is suppoted by any evidence. (vi). The Tribunal, having found that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation, it has not assigned any reason whatsoever to exonerate the insurance company. Therefore, he prayed for allowing the appeal and to set aside the order of exoneration of the insurance company and pass an award that both the respondents in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle had contended that mere delay in registration of F.I.R cannot be considered to be fatal when the claimants have established that the deceased was admitted to the private hospital and thereafter, shifted to Government hospital. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle had contended that mere delay in registration of F.I.R cannot be considered to be fatal when the claimants have established that the deceased was admitted to the private hospital and thereafter, shifted to Government hospital. He had further contended that the deceased was an inpatient in the Government hospital for a month and only thereafter, he passed away. Therefore, the allegations of collusion which is a mere pleading cannot substitute for the proof. The learned counsel had further contended that when the owner of the vehicle was found to be liable to pay compensation, no legally acceptable reason has been assigned by the Tribunal for exonerating the insurance company. Once the insured person is found to be liable to pay compensation, it is the statutory duty of the insurance company/ the insurer to indemnify the insured. Hence, he prayed for allowing the appeal. 11. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ insurance company had contended that according to the claimants the accident has taken place at about 5.00 p.m on 10.03.2012, but the F.I.R has been lodged only on 13.04.2012 after death of the deceased person. The deceased and the first respondent being friends, there is always a possibility that the vehicle is being stage managed to claim compensation for the injuries sustained by the deceased person through some other means. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent had further contended that in Exhibit P14, there is a reference about the involvement of bi-cycle in the accident. Suddenly, the same was converted into a two wheeler while he was admitted to the Government Rajaji Hospital. Therefore, there is a doubt with regard to the nature of the vehicle involved in the said accident. The claimants have not established the involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. He had further contended that an investigator was appointed by the insurance company and he had filed a report under Exhibit X1 which would clearly indicate that there is some doubt relating to the involvement of vehicle and it requires further investigation. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company and the award may not be disturbed. 13. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing for the insurance company, the Tribunal had rightly exonerated the insurance company and the award may not be disturbed. 13. I have considered the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record. 14. It is the specific case of the claimants that the deceased met with an accident at about 5.00 p.m on 10.03.2012, while he was riding a two wheeler as pillion rider which was driven by the first respondent in the claim petition. Exhibit P14- medical reports of the private hospital in which the deceased was admitted initially reflect that it is a case of road traffic accident. It further points out that he was referred to the Government Rajaji Hospital on 11.03.2012 for further treatment. 15. A perusal of Exhibit P11 would indicate that the payments have been made to Government Rajaji Hospital from 11.03.2012 onwards. The various bills indicate that the patient had died on 13.03.2012. Therefore, it is clear that the deceased was inpatient in Government Rajaji Hospital from 11.03.2012 to 13.04.2012. The deceased has been treated in Government hospital only as a road traffic accident case. 16. The owner of the vehicle has been examined as RW1, he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident. According to his counter, he also sustained minor injuries in the said accident. However, instead of taking the deceased person to the hospital, he had left to his home. In his cross examination, he had explained why he had not immediately come to visit his friends or lodged a police complaint. He had deposed that since he was driving the vehicle at the time of accident and his friend was seriously injured in the said accident, he was afraid of the relatives of his friend and therefore, he had not immediately visited his friend in the hospital or lodged a complaint. From the deposition, it could be seen that the first respondent/owner of the vehicle was under the apprehension that a criminal case would be lodged against him and he would be responsible for the death of his friend. However, after the death, the relatives of the deceased have chosen to lodge a police complaint. From the deposition, it could be seen that the first respondent/owner of the vehicle was under the apprehension that a criminal case would be lodged against him and he would be responsible for the death of his friend. However, after the death, the relatives of the deceased have chosen to lodge a police complaint. The conduct of the owner of the vehicle is understandable and he cannot be suspected to have colluded with the family members of his friend only to stage manage an accident to claim compensation from the insurance company. 17. The report of the inspector appointed by the insurance company does not pin point about any doubt or collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the deceased and it only points out that further investigation is required to find out the truth. 18. In the counter affidavit, there is no pleading with regard to fraud or collusion on the part of the owner of the vehicle. There is not even a pleading that the vehicle was not involved in the accident. In Paragraph No.2 of the counter, it is stated that the insurance company apprehends that the claimants would have colluded with the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, it is clear that it was only apprehension and not a pleading relating to non involvement of the vehicle. When the claim petition specifically points out to the involvement of the vehicle, the counter filed by the insurance company is highly evasive. 19. The owner of the vehicle has chosen to examine himself as RW1. No suggestion was put to him that the vehicle was not at all involved in the said accident. In fact, a suggestion has been put to the owner to the effect that if he had carefully driven the vehicle, he could have avoided the accident. Therefore, it is clear that there is neither pleadings nor proof on the side of the insurance company for the allegation of fraud and collusion or non involvement of the vehicle in the said accident. 20. The Tribunal had given inconsistent findings in different paragraphs of the award. At one place, the Tribunal had found that the deceased was injured due to the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, but in another place, the Tribunal had found that the evidence of RW1 is not believable. 20. The Tribunal had given inconsistent findings in different paragraphs of the award. At one place, the Tribunal had found that the deceased was injured due to the involvement of the vehicle belonging to the first respondent, but in another place, the Tribunal had found that the evidence of RW1 is not believable. However, the Tribunal proceeds to fix the liability upon the owner of the vehicle to pay compensation. Once the Tribunal arrives at a finding that the owner of the vehicle is liable to pay compensation, the insurance company has to indemnify the owner unless legally acceptable reasons are pointed out for exonerating the insurance company. If really the Tribunal had arrived at a finding that the involvement of the vehicle is doubtful, the claim petition should have been dismissed in entirety. Only after arriving at a finding that the vehicle of the first respondent is involved in the said accident and the first respondent, due to his rash and negligent driving had caused accident, the Tribunal had fastened the liability upon the owner of the vehicle. When there is no dispute with regard to the existence of the policy, coverage of the policy and there is no allegation of violation of policy condition, the Tribunal was not right in exonerating the insurance company. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 21. In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the Tribunal in exonerating the insurance company is hereby set aside and the respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition are jointly and severally liable to pay the award amount as decided by the Tribunal. 22. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed to the extent as stated above. No costs.