By this appeal the appellant takes exception to judgment and award dated 6/09/2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. South Goa, Margao in Claim Petition No.95 of 2000 dismissing the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 ("The Act" for short).

2. The appellant/claimant filed the claim petition against the respondents claming compensation of Rs. 2.00 lakhs. According to the claimant. on 9/6/1998. he was returning home from Margao. When he reached Gudi Paroda at about 6.20 p.m, Maruti van bearing registration no.GA-02/T-3930 driven by respondent no. 1 , owned by respondent no.2 and insured with respondent no.3. came in opposite direction and on wrong side of the road and dashed against his motor-cycle and knocked him down. The claimant sustained fracture of his left leg and also other injuries. According to the claimant. respondent no. 1 drove the van in a rash and negligent manner resulting in the accident on account of which he suffered injuries.

3. The respondents contested the claim petition. According to respondent no. 1. he was not driving the van in rash and negligent manner. but it was the claimant who was driving his motorcycle in a rash and negligent manner. It was the case of respondent no. 1 that the claimant himself was prosecuted for rash and negligent driving under Section 279 of LP.C. On the basis of the pleadings the following issues were framed:

i) Whether the applicant proves that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the respondent no.1 of the Maruti van bearing no.GA-02/T-3930?

ii) Whether the applicant proves that he is entitled to a total compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- ?

4. In claim petition no.95 of 2000.

the claimant examined himself and Gurudas Gaonkar. A W.2, who claimed to be a eyewitness to the accident and Dr. R. D. Nagvekar.

A W.3, Orthopedic Surgeon of Hospicio hospital was examined to prove that the claimant had suffered look permanent disability. On behalf of the respondents, respondent no.1 examined himself. The Tribunal held that the claimant had not proved that respondent no. 1 was driving the vehicle in rash and negligent manner and consequently dismissed the claim petition.

5. Ms. Kakodkar. learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant assailed the judgment and award on the following grounds:

i) The finding recorded by the Tribunal that the claimant was rash and negligent is contrary to the evidence on record.

ii) The Tribunal ought not to have placed implicit reliance upon evidence of respondent no. 1 who was the driver of the offending vehicle.

(iii) The claimant had discharged the burden of proving that respondent no. 1 was driving the van in a rash and negligent manner.

6. In support of her submissions Ms. Kakodkar relied upon the following judgments:

i) N.K.V. Bros (PI Ltd. Vs. M. Karumai Ammal and others, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 1354.

ii) United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Sayaji s/o. Masuji Shinde and others, 2008(5) ALL MR 731.

iii) Bimla Devi & Ors. Vs. Himachal Road Transport Corpn. & Ors., AIR 2009 Supreme Court 2819 : [2009 ALL SCR 1771].

Ms. Kakodkar further submitted that the claimant is entitled to compensation of ~ 2.00 lakhs claimed by him.

7. As stated above, none has appeared on behalf of the respondents, though they are served.

8. I have considered the submissions made by Ms. Kakodkar and perused the record.

9. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the findings given by the Tribunal the following points arise for determination in the appeal:

i) Whether the Tribunal erred in giving the finding that the claimant himself was rash and negligent in driving his motorcycle?

ii) If yes, to what compensation the claimant is entitled?

10. In order to prove that respondent no.1 was rash and negligent in driving, the claimant examined himself and one Gurudas Gaonkar, AW.2 The claimant deposed in consonance with the averments made in the plaint. He deposed that the acciden