1. Though this matter is listed for admission, with the consent of the Learned counsel for the respective parties, it is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is by the claimant challenging the liability fastened on the first respondent-owner and absolving the liability as against the second respondent-insurer.

3. The brief facts of the case are:

The appellant-claimant instituted claim petition before the Tribunal claiming compensation in respect of the personal injuries which he sustained in a motor accident that took place on 25.02.2004 at about 7.00 p.m., near Achina in Padangady village involving Autorickshaw bearing registration No.KA-21-6390, owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent at the relevant point of time. In the impugned accident he sustained serious injuries comprising of fractures for which he took treatment in the Hospital by spending huge money. Despite the same, he is not completely cured of the injuries due to which he is unable to carry on his avocation, which has resulted in loss of income to him. Accordingly, he sought for grant of compensation from the respondents.

4. After service of notice, the first respondent remained absent. Hence, he was placed exparte. The second respondent-insurer appeared and contested the claim of the petitioner. They contended that the accident has not taken place on account of the fault of the driver of three wheeler involved in the accident. They further contended that the vehicle involved in the accident was a transport vehicle, the driver of the same did not possess valid and effective license to drive the said vehicle at the time of accident, as such there is breach of terms and conditions of the policy. They also denied all other averments made by the claimant in his petition and sought for dismissal of the same on the ground that they are not liable to pay any compensation.

5. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Tribunal initially framed the following four issues:-

1(a). Whether the petitioner proves that the alleged accident was taken place and it was solely due to rash and negligent driving of the auto bearing registration No.Ka-21-6390 by its driver-respondent No.1?

1(b). Whether there was any contributory negligence of the petitioner in causing the alleged accident? If so, to what extent?

2. Whether the petitioner further proves that due to the impact of the alleged accident, he sustained alleged injuries?

3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for any compensation from the respondents? If so, for how much?

4. What order?

6. The claimant in support of his case got himself examined as PW1 and one more witness as PW2. He produced 170 documents, which came to be marked as Exhibit P1 to P170. The contesting respondents initially did not lead any evidence. On the other hand, they produced three documents, which came to be marked as Exhibit R1 to R3.

7. The Tribunal on considering the oral and documentary evidence on record held that the accident in question took place solely on account of the fault of the driver of the offending autorickshaw, accordingly, the claimant has established actionable negligence. Further, the Tribunal looking to the evidence of the claimant and the documents produced both by the claimant and respondents’ awarded compensation of Rs.75,000/- with interest at 7% per annum from the date of petition till realization. Further it saddled the liability of payment of compensation on the second respondent-insurer by its judgment and award dated 22.08.2006.

8. The second respondent-insurer being aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 22.08.2006 fastening the liability on them preferred MFA.No.11799/2006 before this Court. This Court allowed the said appeal and remitted the matter back to the Tribunal with a direction to afford sufficient opportunity to all the parties in the claim petition in respect of the claim made and the stand taken by them and to dispose off the case on merits.

9. After the