Parties were put to notice that the appeal would be disposed of at the admission stage itself.

2. Heard Mr. Keni, learned counsel on behalf of the Appellant and Mr. Joshi, learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent.

3. This appeal arises out of the Judgment and Award dated 31/7/2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panaji in Claim Petition No. 46/2009, filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988.

4. Case of the appellant was that on 24/10/2008 at about 9.30 a.m., when she was returning home after attending Mass at Archbishop's House at Altinho and while she was walking on the pavement in front of that building, near All India Radio building (Akashwani Kendra), a dash was given to her by TVS Victor motorcycle bearing registration no. GA-03-A-1375, ridden by the respondent, rashly and negligently, due to which she sustained grievous injuries, resulting into permanent disablement. She had filed the claim petition claiming total compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-.

5. Before the Claims Tribunal, the appellant examined herself as AW.1, Dr. Shivanand Bandekar as AW.2, Head Constable, Shri N. Thakur as AW.3, P.S.I., Shri Tushar Lotlikar as AW.4 and another P.S.I, Shri Vijaykumar Chodankar as AW.5. The respondent examined himself as RW.1.

6. The learned Claims Tribunal, upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, concluded that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of a Motorcycle by its rider. It has been held that the claimant is entitled to total compensation of Rs. 30,000/-. However, the Claims Tribunal further held that the claimant failed to prove that the respondent or his motorcycle was involved in the accident, due to which the claim petition came to be dismissed. The said claimant has filed this appeal.

7. The learned Counsel for the parties were directed to first address the Court on the point of involvement of the respondent and his vehicle, as that was the point which led to the dismissal of the claim petition.

8. Mr. Keni, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, submitted that the appellant, in the Claim Petition as well as in her affidavit-in-evidence, has stated that the respondent was the rider of the said TVS scooter bearing no. GA-03-A-1375, which caused the accident. According to him, to support this case of the appellant, there is strong circumstantial evidence on record. He pointed out from the evidence of the Investigating Officer namely AW.5 that while the case was under investigation, the Special Judicial Magistrate was requested to hold Test Identification Parade and summons was issued to the respondent to attend the office of the Special Judicial Magistrate for said identification parade, but the respondent did not attend and this shows his guilty conscious conduct. He further pointed out that by letter dated 17/3/2009, the claimant had informed the police that it was the respondent who was riding the said T.V.S. motorcycle which caused the accident. He submitted that AW.5 has denied that there were no damages to the said T.V.S. motorcycle. He lastly submitted that the claimant i.e the appellant had no rivalry with the driver i.e. the respondent and there was no reason to falsely implicate him in the case. He, therefore, submitted that the appellant has duly proved that it was the respondent who had caused the accident, by means of his TVS Motorcycle.

9. On the contrary, Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that the alleged accident had occurred on 24/10/2008 and F.I.R. was registered on 30/10/2008 against unknown person. He submitted that the evidence of AW.3 and the complaint filed by him, on behalf of the State, reveals that the appellant had given statement, while in Goa Medical College Hospital, that an unknown person had given gash of motorcycle to her and the name of the respondent surfaced only after about 4 to 5 months i.e. on 17/3/2009. Attention of this Court was invited to the evi