1. The appeal is directed against the award, dated 30-09-1996 in M.V.O.P. No.41 of 1993 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Visakhapatnam.

2. The factual background for the appeal is that the appellant, a milk vendor, was proceeding towards Madhurawada as a pillion rider on a scooter, which was dashed against by motor cycle No. AP 31C 8090, driven rashly and negligently, and coming in a wrong direction. He fell down, sustained a compound fracture of right ankle and abrasions on the right leg and was treated at King George hospital, Visakhapatnam. The driver of the motor cycle—the 1st respondent, the owner—the 2nd respondent, and the insurer—the 3rd respondent are, hence, sued for a compensation of Rs.50,000/-.

3. The 1st respondent contested the claim contending that he came on the left side of the road and was negotiating the traffic junction, when suddenly an auto rickshaw came in high speed followed by an ambassador car. To avoid any possible damage to him and his vehicle, the 1st respondent stopped the vehicle and the petitioner coming as a pillion rider on a scooter and the driver of the scooter were carrying LPG cylinders and they came fast rashly and negligently and attempted to overtake the ambassador car and auto rickshaw and hit the 1st respondent’s vehicle. The fully loaded LPG cylinders fell on the feet of the petitioner and the driver of the scooter and the injuries were sustained only due to the same and not due to causing of any accident by the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent, therefore, pleaded that he is not liable to pay any compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner due to his own contributory negligence.

4. The 2nd respondent adopted the counter of the 1st respondent.

5. The 3rd respondent contested the claim putting the petitioner to strict proof of all his allegations and denying any liability to compensate the petitioner. The 3rd respondent pleaded that the petitioner has to strictly prove that the motor cycle was validly insured, that the driver of the motor cycle had valid driving licence and other essential requirements to make the insurer liable. The 3rd respondent, hence, desired the claim to be negatived.

6. On such pleadings, the Tribunal framed appropriate issues on the manner of the accident and the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation and during the enquiry, it examined P.Ws.1 and 2 and marked Exs.A.1 to A.3 and B.1 to B.4. It rendered the impugned award firstly concluding that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle by the 1st respondent, for which purpose it accepted the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, corroborated by Ex.A.1 first information report. However, while coming to the entitlement of the petitioner to compensation, the Tribunal observed that no documentary evidence was produced by P.W.1 to show that he was treated in King George hospital and he did not examine either the doctor, who treated him or the doctor, who issued the disability certificate and therefore, concluded that the petitioner failed to establish that he received the injuries in the accident and sustained disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without costs.

7. The claimant preferred the present appeal against the said award contending that when the Tribunal concluded that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent, it ought to have granted just and adequate compensation to the petitioner, more so, due to the death of Dr. G. Narasimha Reddy, who treated the petitioner, during the pendency of the claim petition before the Tribunal itself. The disability certificate was issued by another doctor only on verification of records of King George hospital and the disability certificate should have been acted upon to grant compensation.

8. Heard Sri M. Kesava Rao, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Srinivasa Rao Vutla, learned standing counsel for t