The main legal point established in the judgment is the court's reliance on the charge-sheet and the failure of the respondents to challenge it or examine the accused rider, leading to the affirmation of the Addl. MACT's decision.

John Michael Cunha, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 21.5.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) and Addl. MACT, Gubbi, in MVC.No.671/2006.

2. By the impugned award, the Addl. MACT has allowed the petition in part awarding a total compensation of Rs.3,33,000/- together with 6% interest from the date of petition till realization of the awarded amount.

3. The appellant -Insurance Company is aggrieved mainly by the finding of the learned Addl. MACT that the accident in question was caused on account of the rash and negligent driving of the TVS Max 100 Bike bearing registration No.KA.06.S.9469. It is contended in the appeal that a false claim has been laid by the claimants implicating the owner of the aforesaid motor bike even though the circumstances pleaded by the claimants and the facts proved in evidence clearly indicate that the said motor bike was not at all involved in the alleged accident.

4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the respondents.

5. In view of the contentions urged in the appeal, the only question that arise for consideration is, Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the Addl. MACT that the accident in question was caused on account of the actionable negligence of the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA.06.S.9469 is sustainable?

6. I have gone through the records of the Addl. MACT and the impugned judgment.

7. At the outset, it is relevant to note that the claim petition has been presented on the specific averment that on 29.10.2005, at about 11.30 p.m., when the deceased Mahadevaiah was walking on the left side of the road near Siddappa's land, the rider of the motor bike bearing registration No.KA.06.S.9469 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased from behind, as a result, the deceased died instantaneously.

8. The owner of the aforesaid motor bike is arrayed as respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 has filed a statement of objections denying the allegation that the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of the TVS Max 100 bike bearing registration No.KA.06.S.9469 by its rider. The Insurer of the said vehicle who is arrayed as second respondent has also filed the statement of objections admitting the insurance cover, but denying the involvement of the aforesaid motor bike in the accident in question.

9. In the course of the evidence, claimant No.1 (PW.1) has squarely implicated the rider of the aforesaid motor bike and in support thereof has produced in evidence the certified copy of the complaint Ex.P1, panchanama Ex.P2, inquest mahazar Ex.P3, PM Report Ex.P4, charge- sheet Ex.P5, Milk Co-operative Society Card Ex.P6 and other documents. In her cross-examination she has denied the suggestion that the deceased did not succumb to the injuries caused due to the actionable negligence of the rider of the aforesaid motor bike. This witness is not an eyewitness to the incident and therefore, much credence cannot be given to her evidence as she has unequivocally admitted that she was not present at the spot during the accident.

10. PW.2 an eyewitness to the incident has also spoken about the involvement of the aforesaid motor bike in causing the accident leading to the death of the deceased. But this witness is not subjected to cross-examination. As such, his evidence cannot be relied on.

11. However, PW.3 another eyewitness to the incident has specifically stated that when he was waiting to board the bus to return to his village after attending the marriage function of his relative at Bommanahalli, the TVS Max 100 bike bearing registration No.KA.06.S.9469 driven in a rash and negligent manner hit against the deceased and caused the accident. In the cross-examination of this witness, it is elicited that this witness did not take the deceased to the hospital nor informed the police. It is also elicited that the police did not record his statement with