JUDGMENT : These Civil Miscellaneous Appeals have been filed by owner of the vehicle/respondent against the common award dated 30.08.2022 made in M.C.O.P.Nos.237 and 238 of 2011 respectively, by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/Special Court for EC & NDPS Act cases, Pudukkottai, on the liability issue. 2. Case of the petitioners as set out in both claim petitions is stated hereunder in brief: a. On 02.06.2010 at about 3.45 p.m., while the petitioner Smt.Parameshwari was walking along with her minor daughter Dhivya along the left side of the Pudukkottai-Alangudi road at the point of Murugappa Petrol Bunk, a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-55-P-7770 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed her and her daughter from behind. Due to the said impact, she suffered fracture over the right hand and her minor daughter Dhivya has also suffered fracture over her right leg above knee and head injury. They were taken to the Pudukkottai Government Hospital for treatment. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the respondent. b. Per contra, it has been stated in the counter that when the respondent was riding his two wheeler along Pudukkottai-Alangudi road from west to east direction and opposite to Murugappa Petrol Bunk, a woman with her child, suddenly crossed the road. At that time, a white mini van came in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the said woman and her child and also hit on the respondent and the vehicle did not stop. The respondent also took treatment at KMC Hospital for nearly one and half month. Therefore, the respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimants in both claim petitions. c. At trial, on the petitioner side, the claimant/Parameswari has examined herself as P.W.1 and sixteen documents were marked. On the respondent’s side, two witnesses were examined and five documents were marked. Ex.P1 is the First Information Report. Accident Register (copy) of the claimant is Ex.P2. Accident Register (copy) of minor Dhivya is Ex.P7. Accident Register (copy) of the respondent is Ex.R1. d. Upon consideration, the Tribunal has concluded that due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the respondent, the accident happened and liability was fastened on the respondent. Against this finding, the respondent has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 3. Accident Register (copy) of minor Dhivya is Ex.P7. Accident Register (copy) of the respondent is Ex.R1. d. Upon consideration, the Tribunal has concluded that due to the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by the respondent, the accident happened and liability was fastened on the respondent. Against this finding, the respondent has preferred these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant/respondent, vehemently, argued that P.W.1, during her cross-examination, has deposed that as to which vehicle hit on her was not seen by her. During her cross-examination, a suggestion was posed that a white mini van hit on her as well as on Sathyamoorthy (appellant/respondent) from the behind, was denied by her. 4. It is the evidence of R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) that on 02.06.2010, while he was proceeding along Pudukkottai-Alangudi road from west to east direction slowly at the point of Murugappa Petrol Bunk, a white mini van, which came in the opposite direction, hit a woman and her child, who were crossing the road and the vehicle went off. Due to said impact, the appellant/respondent also sustained head injury and lost his consciousness. During his cross- examination, when a suggestion was posed to the effect that at the time of accident, the claimant and her minor daughter were walking on the road ahead of his vehicle, it was denied by him. 5. The appellant/respondent had examined eyewitness/Shanmuganathan son of Soman, as R.W.2. It has come on record through the evidence of R.W.2 that on 02.06.2010, when he was travelling in his two wheeler along Alangudi-Pudukkottai road and when he was reaching Murugappa Petrol Bunk from east to western side, a white mini van came at a high speed, rash and negligent manner and hit on Sathyamoorthy, another woman and her baby and the van did not stop and went off. As the appellant/respondent also sustained severe head injury, he fell on the ground and became unconscious. The appellant/respondent along with another person was sent to Pudukkottai Government Hospital through ambulance. During cross-examination of the appellant/R.W.1, he would state that he did not lodge any complaint. 6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/respondent did not lodge any complaint at all. Both R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) and R.W.2/Shanmuganathan have been examined by the Police. R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) would also state during his cross-examination that case was registered against him by the Police. During cross-examination of the appellant/R.W.1, he would state that he did not lodge any complaint. 6. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/respondent did not lodge any complaint at all. Both R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) and R.W.2/Shanmuganathan have been examined by the Police. R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) would also state during his cross-examination that case was registered against him by the Police. It appears that due to the accident, R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) was also hospitalised on the date of accident and he was admitted as an inpatient for about 14 days in KMC Hospital, Trichy. As per Ex.R3/Discharge summary issued by KMC Hospital, Trichy, he was admitted as an inpatient between 02.06.2010 and 16.10.2010. In the Accident Register/Exs.P2, P7 and R1, as regards the history of the case, it has been mentioned as RTA. Ex.P1 is the copy of the First Information Report. Complaint statement of the claimant/Parameswari was recorded by the Police on 02.06.2010 at about 23.00 hours (11.00 p.m). When she had given a statement, it had been recorded by the Police, based on which the First Information Report was registered. The relevant portion of the FIR is culled out hereunder: ,dW; 02/06/2010k; njjp kjpak; 7. First Information Report is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can only be used for the purpose of corroboration and contradictions. It is pertinent to note that the statement of the claimant/Parameswari has been recorded at Pudukkottai Government Hospital on the date of occurrence itself at about 23.00 hours (11.00 p.m.). Based on the said statement of the claimant/Parameswari, First Information Report was registered against the appellant/respondent. Evidence includes chief examination as well as cross-examination. P.W.1, in her chief examination has stated that when she along with her daughter was walking along the left side of the road, the appellant/respondent came in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-55-P-7770, which came at a high speed and without making horn sound, hit on her and her child from behind. Of course, during her cross examination, she would state that she did not notice which vehicle hit on her. 8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/respondent had examined an eyewitness, who is R.W2 and had fully supported the case of the respondent. Of course, during her cross examination, she would state that she did not notice which vehicle hit on her. 8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant/respondent had examined an eyewitness, who is R.W2 and had fully supported the case of the respondent. R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) and R.W. 2/claimed to be eyewitnesses, have unilaterally given a version to the effect that a white mini van, which came from east to western side in a rash and negligent manner, hit on Parameswari and her daughter as well as Sathyamoorthy and the mini van did not stop on the spot. R.W.2 claims to be a known person to the respondent. R.W.1 (appellant/respondent) also sustained head injury and he was admitted in the hospital. Had it been true, R.W.2 could have lodged a complaint before the Police Station. R.W1 and R.W2 have admitted that they were examined by the Police. Therefore, after analysing the evidence of P.W.1, R.W.1 and R.W.2 coupled with the First Information Report/Ex.P1, it is made clear that due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant/respondent alone, the accident had happened and on account of the same, the respondent/claimant along with her minor daughter sustained severe injuries. Therefore, the appellant/respondent is liable to pay compensation to the respondent/claimant in both appeals. The Tribunal has rightly fastened the liability on the appellant/respondent. I see no good reason to disturb the finding of the Tribunal as regards the liability. Hence, the award of the Tribunal stands confirmed. Based on the aforesaid discussions and observations, these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals are dismissed and 1. the appellant in both the appeals is directed to deposit the award amount of Rs.75,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Thousand only) to the respondent/claimant in C.M.A(MD)No.193 of 2023 and Rs.3,78,616/- (Rupees Three Lakhs Seventy Eight Thousand Six Hundred and Sixteen only) to the respondent/claimant in C.M.A.(MD)No.194 of 2023 along with 7.5% interest per annum from the date of the claim petition till the date of realisation and costs, less the amount already deposited, if any, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; 2. on such deposit, the respondent/claimant in C.M.A.(MD)No.193 of 2023 is permitted to withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. 3. on such deposit, the respondent/claimant in C.M.A.(MD)No.193 of 2023 is permitted to withdraw the award amount with interest and costs, less the amount already withdrawn, if any, by filing appropriate application before the Tribunal. 3. the respondent/claimant in C.M.A.(MD)No.194 of 2023, then a minor in the year 2010, on appropriate application, is at liberty to withdraw the awarded amount. 4. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.