JUDGMENT

1. The advocate for the appellant has withdrawn his appearance. The Registrar sent notice to the appellant before leave was granted to the advocate to withdraw his appearance. The appellant is, however, not present in the Court today.

2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and award dated 04.10.2016 in Claim Petition No.60/2011, by which the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Tribunal) determined that the appellant was entitled to compensation of Rs. 48,000/- provided she was to establish that the accident was due to the rashness and negligence of the Mahindra Jeep driver (respondent no.1 herein). However, the Tribunal held that the appellant did not prove such rashness and negligence and dismissed the claim petition. Hence this appeal.

3. In this appeal, therefore, three issues arise for determination:-

(a) Whether the appellant had succeeded in proving that the accident took place on account of the rashness and negligence of respondent no.1 (driver of the Mahindra Jeep)?

(b) If yes, what would be the just compensation payable to the appellant?

(c) Is respondent no.2 (State) not liable to pay any compensation because the State already auctioned the Mahindra Jeep to respon