The court emphasized the importance of considering circumstantial evidence and medical opinions in determining liability and quantum of compensation in motor vehicle accident cases.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the owner and the insurer of the vehicle, viz. , motor cycle bearing No. MEX. 2021, and is directed against the judgment and award dated 30th April, 1977 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mangalore, in MC (MVC) Nos. 76 of 1978 and 143 of 1976 on its file. The present appellants were respondents 1 and 2 in MC (MVC) No. 76 of 1976.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the claimant that on 15-4-1976 at about 11-15 p. m. , he was going on the motor cycle bearing mex. 2204 on, the road near Kankanadi Hospital having come from Fr. Muller's hospital; that he was going op the left side of the road; that P. W. 3 Adolph D' Souza was sitting on the pillion; that at that lime, the first respondent, Yogaraj, came riding his motor cycle bearing MEX. 2021 from the opposite side with fast speed; that he came off side the road and coming on the wrong side, hit the motor cycle on which the claimant was going on the right broad side of the road, as a result of which both the motor cycles fell down and the petitioner sustained fracture of the right femur and fracture of right patella. He was first admitted to the Vijaya Clinic where he stayed from 154-1976 to 18-4-1976. Thereafter, he got himself admitted to fr, Muller's hospital where he was treated from 18-4-1976 to 29-5-1976. It is the case of the petitioner that he was running a tailoring shop having 12 tailors under him and he was earning more than Rs. 2,000 per month. As a result of the accident he could not attend to his work for six months and besides he is now left with disability in the right leg. So he claims damages of Rs. 75,000 from the respondents.

( 3 ) RESPONDENT-1 is Yogaraj, the driver owner of the other motor cycle. Respondent 2 is the insurer of the other motor cycle. The respondents resisted the claim. According to them, the accident was not due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 by Yogaraj. It was entirely due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2204 by the petitioner anthony Fernandes. Alternatively, they cor tended that the compensation claimed was exorbitant.

( 4 ) THE Tribunal raised the following issues as arising from the pleadings: - (1) Does the petitioner prove that the injurties sustained by him were due to the rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle MEX. 2021 ? (2) Was respondent No. 1 guilty of negligence? (3) Is the petitioner entitled to get damages; if yes, what amount and from which of the respondents? (4) Is the respondent No. 2 not liable for the reasons mentioned by it? (5) What order?

( 5 ) DURING the hearing, the petitioner examined P. Ws 1 to 3. P. W 1 is Dr. J. N. A. D'souza, an Orthopaedic surgeon in Fr. Muller's hospital, who examined and treated the petitioner. P. W. 2 is the petitioner Anthony fernandes. P. W. 3 is Adolph J. D. Souza. He was the pillion rider. He has spoken to the manner of accident and the injury sustained by the petitioner. As against that, the respondents have examined three witnesses. R. W. 1 is J. Mylaraiah, a clerk in the r. T. O's Office. R. W. 2 is Dr. Kodandaram who speaks about the injuries sustained by respondent-1, r. W. 3 is Yogaraj a. respondent-1. He gives his own version about the accident. In addition to the oral evidence, Ext- P-1 to P-17 were marked on behalf of the petitioner and Exsb-1 to R-16, on behalf of the respondents. Appreciating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle mex. 2021 by respondent-1 and in that view, it awarded compensation of rs. 34,220-55 P. to the petitioner from the respondents. Aggrieved by the said Judgment and award, the respondents have come up in appeal before this Court.

( 6 ) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellants vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in recording its finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the motor cycle bearing No. MEX. 2021