1. This is an appeal of the original injured claimant assailing the judgment and award dated 10/08/2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, MACT-II, Margao pursuant to which he had dismissed the Claim Petition giving rise to the present appeal against the original respondents. The learned MACT held against the claimant on the aspect of the rashness and negligence at the instance of the respondent no.1 and did not even quantify the quantum of compensation without prejudice thereto which he would have been entitled to had he succeeded in the petition. Be that as it may, the parties would be referred to as the claimant and the respondents for brevity's sake hereinafter.

2. The claimant had maintained the petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, ('Act' for short hereinafter) carving out a case that he was 27 years old, working as a Seaman/Engine Fitter, earning US dollars 1000 while working on the vessel MVSJN ORCAS. On 20/04/2006 he was proceeding from Canacona to Kindlem and on reaching at Mangan at about 14.15 hrs., the respondent no.1 came riding the motorcycle bearing registration no.GA-08/C-9827 at a fast speed, in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction when suddenly a bullock jumped in front of him and in order to avoid the accident he came on the extreme right side of the road. The claimant took the motorcycle towards the middle of the road to avoid a head on collision but the respondent no.1 got nervous and gave a dash to the front tyre of his motorcycle and after the accident the position of the motorcycle was changed before the panchanama thinking that the claimant had died in the accident. He had sustained injuries, lost consciousness and was immediately shifted to the CHC Canacona, then to the Hospicio Hospital at Margao and thereafter to the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim as his condition was very serious and there was no hope for his survival. He was shifted to the Apollo Victor Hospital, Margao since there was no Senior Neurosurgeon available at the Goa Medical College Hospital, Bambolim.

3. The claimant had suffered multiple injuries which were of a serious nature and therefore he was entitled to the compensation of Rs.24,00,000/- which the respondents were jointly and severally liable to pay to him. Although the respondent no.1 owner cum rider was duly served with the notice of the petition, no written statement in defence came to be filed at his instance disputing the case of the claimant as pleaded particularly on the aspect of the rashness and negligence and it was only the respondents no.2/the insurer which denied the case of the claimant on the aspect of the rashness and negligence as pleaded and which was surprisingly affirmed by the Senior Divisional Manager as being true to her knowledge, belief and information without disclosing the source of her information particularly on the aspect of the rashness and negligence. Similar was the position even after the claimant amended his petition and the same Senior Divisional Manager verified the additional written statement in defence on behalf of the insurer denying the claimant's case on the amendment and the enhanced compensation claimed by him.

4. Be that as it may, Shri V.G.P. Dukle, learned Advocate for the claimant came to be heard at his instance who adverted to the panchanama vis-a-vis the plea specifically taken by the claimant in his petition and asserted that the position of the vehicle was changed subsequently to fasten the liability on the claimant. No written statement was filed in defence by the rider cum owner and it was only the insurer which had filed the written statement denying the claimant's case particularly on the rashness and negligence of the rider and instead fastening the liability on the claimant himself. The claimant had examined two witnesses in support of his case, one of them being the pillion on the motorcycle driven by the respondent no.1 and an eye witness and despite whic