The main legal point established in the judgment is that the driver's negligence in causing a motor vehicle accident can lead to liability and compensation under the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988.

V.K. Jadhav, J.

Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Award passed by the Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Nanded in MACP No.281/1994, the original respondent no.2insurer has preferred this appeal.

2. Brief facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are as under :

(a) On 15.1.1994 the respondent-original claimant was riding his moped vehicle Bajaj M 80 bearing registration No. MH 26/1454. He was going to his office along with pillion rider Shri S.S. Deshpande. The respondent/original claimant is an employee of respondent No.1. On that day, while riding the said moped vehicle, when he reached near the office of Cidco at about 09.20 am, a staff transportation bus bearing registration No.7418 was going ahead of the petitioner's moped vehicle. There was crowd in front of the office of CIDCO as certain agitation was going on account of the change in the name of Marathwada University. There was sort of unrest and tension in the said locality. At that time, driver of the bus apprehend that some untoward incident may occur and, therefore, suddenly the driver started taking the staff transportation Bus in reverse direction, in consequence of which said staff bus gave dash to the moped of the respondent/claimant from backside. The claimant and pillion rider were thrown off the vehicle and sustained injuries. Thereafter, the claimant was shifted to the private hospital by his colleagues in the same staff vehicle and he was treated there as indoor patient for near about a month. Injuries sustained by him also resulted into permanent disability and, he also incurred medical expenses for the treatment. The Respondent-claimant has therefore, filed claim petition bearing No.281/1994 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded. The learned Member, of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nanded by impugned Judgment and Award 17.6.2000 directed the respondents no.1 and 2 jointly and severally to pay Rs.25,000/- to the claimant along with interest from the date of petition till the realization of the amount. Being aggrieved by the same, the original respondent no.2 Insurer has preferred this appeal.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant-insurer submits that, the claimant himself was negligent at the relevant time and, as such the accident had occurred. Learned counsel submits that, there is no evidence that said staff transportation bus was involved in the accident. Learned counsel submits that, after noticing the crowd in front of the Cidco office, the claimant started turning his moped vehicle without taking proper care and caution and moped vehicle skidded and therefore, he fell down on the road. Learned counsel submits that, as the claimant was in employment of the respondent no.1, out of humanity and sympathy some of the staff members immediately rendered help to him and took him to the private hospital. Learned counsel submits that the claimant by giving a false report manipulated false panchnama through the police agency. Learned counsel submits that, the Tribunal has not considered the same and, accordingly awarded the compensation to the claimant from the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for respondent-original claimant submits that, the claimant has examined himself on oath before the Tribunal and his evidence discloses that the staff bus vehicle gave dash to his vehicle Bajaj M80 and, as such, he was thrown on the ground. There is evidence that the claimant has, therefore, sustained injuries on his knee cap and accordingly incurred the medical expenses. Learned counsel submits that, the department had assured him to give compensation and as such, he did not approach the police immediately after the accident. Learned counsel submits that, there is nothing in his cross examination to disbelieve his version. Learned counsel submits that, the claimant has also examined one more witness who was the passenger in the said transportation vehicle. He has categorically deposed that, when the said staff transportation bus came in f