The claimant must provide satisfactory evidence of the vehicle's involvement and negligence to succeed in a compensation claim under the Motor Vehicles Act, and mere acceptance of guilt by the driver does not fulfill this burden.

JUDGMENT

1. These appeals are filed by both the claimant and the insurance company aggrieved by the award passed in M.V.C.No.468/2010 dtd. 19/11/2011 on the file of the Fast Track Court and Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kundapura. The appeal of the claimant is numbered as M.F.A.No.8145/2012 and the appeal of the insurance company is numbered as M.F.A.No.2731/2012 whereby the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.60, 670.00.

2. The claim petition was filed seeking compensation of an amount of Rs.5, 74, 000.00 for the injuries sustained by the claimant in the accident that took place on 24/11/2009. The Tribunal had granted an amount of Rs.60, 670.00. It is the case of the claimant that on 24/11/2009 at about 12:30 p.m., the claimant was proceeding on a motor bike, at that time, the rider of the offending vehicle rode the same in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the vehicle of the claimant, by which the claimant sustained injuries. He had spent huge amounts towards the treatment. The insurance company had filed the counter before the Court below stating that the accident had occurred on 24/11/2009 at 12:30 p.m. and a private complaint was lodged on 30/1/2010.

According to them, both the owner of the vehicle as well as the complainant belongs to the same village and belongs to the same caste. The claimant was driving the said motor cycle in a high speed and he could not control the movement of the same as such he lost control over the motor cycle and the said vehicle fell on the road and the claimant sustained injuries. It was a self fall and there was an act of collusion between the owner of the vehicle and the claimant and they filed this claim petition for the purpose of claiming the compensation.

3. Considering the fact that a charge sheet is filed against the rider of the offending vehicle and he had also pleaded guilty, the Court below had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred and further, the Tribunal had negatived the contention of the insurance company that there is collusion. It is the observation of the Court below that nothing could be elicited or they could prove that there is collusion. Accordingly, considering the injuries sustained by the claimant, the Court below granted compensation of an amount of Rs.60, 670.00.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company submits that even according to the claimant, he was admitted in the hospital on 24/11/2009 and he was discharged on 4/12/2009 and the private complaint was lodged on 30/1/2010. In the cross examination, it is elicited that both the claimant as well as the owner of the vehicle belongs to the same village and same caste. The delay in giving the complaint and the spot mahazar was drawn on 6/2/2010 and the wound certificate was dtd. 20/2/2012. All these create any amount of doubts in the manner in which the accident had occurred and how the vehicle had been implicated by the claimant with the act of collusion between the claimant and the owner of the vehicle for the purpose of claiming the compensation. It is also submitted that the appeal against the rider of the vehicle is already dismissed by the Court below on 22/9/2010. Learned counsel submits that the claim petition itself is not maintainable. It is submitted that the Court below without appreciating any of the evidence and only relying on the charge sheet and as the rider of the vehicle had accepted the guilt, had granted the compensation. He submits that the delay in giving the complaint itself is fatal to the case of the claimant and further, mere conviction or accepting the guilt by the accused cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that the accident had occurred and there is involvement of the vehicle. He submits that when an application is filed under Sec. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act the burden lies on the claimant to prove that there is involvement of the vehicle and there is negligence. He submits that the complaint was given nearly after a month because