JUDGMENT :

1. The appellant/original claimant impugns the judgment and award dated 22/02/2017, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kandhar, District Nanded, in Motor Accident Claim Petition [MACP] No.41/2011 by filing present appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’ for short].

2. The appellant/claimant had approached the Tribunal under Section 166 of the Act, thereby raising the claim for compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- towards accidental injuries and permanent disability suffered by him in motor vehicle accident. The claimant contends that on 03/10/2010, the appellant was a pillion rider of motorcycle bearing registration no.MH-26-U-3455 and his friend, namely, Govind Trimbakrao Karhale was riding the motorcycle. At that time, a jeep bearing registration no.31-CV-4469 took sharp turn after overtaking the motorcycle and applied sudden brakes. Resultantly, the motorcycle collided on the jeep at its rear side. The appellant suffered grievous injury on his right knee. He was treated as inpatient from 03/10/2010 to 13/10/2010. The accident was reported to the Police Station and the offence was registered against the jeep driver. After due investigation, a charge-sheet is filed against the jeep driver.

3. The claimant further contends that he was practicing Advocate at the time of accident. Because of the injuries suffered in the said accident, he has become permanently disabled. The Medical College and Hospital, Nanded assessed permanent disablement and issued a certificate that the appellant has suffered 20% permanent disablement. As such, he claimed the compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- from the owner and insurer of the jeep. The Tribunal framed the issues, recorded the evidence and after hearing the parties, pleased to dismiss the claim petition holding that the appellant failed to prove the negligence of jeep driver.

4. The appellant/original claimant aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition approached this Court.

5. Mr. Shinde, learned Advocate appearing for the appellant would submit that the appellant was a pillion rider on the motorcycle at the time of accident. Due to sudden application of brakes by the jeep driver, motorcycle collided on rear side of the jeep. The offence was registered against the jeep driver and on conclusion of investigation, the charge-sheet [Exhibit-29] has been filed against him. No contrary evidence is brought on record by the respondents to dislodge the conclusion drawn by the police machinery. He would, therefore, submit that the Tribunal committed grave error while recording the finding of negligence against the motorcycle rider. He would further submit that if the Court concludes that the motorcycle rider was also responsible in the cause of accident, the case would be governed by the principles of composite negligence. The appellant/claimant has choice to prosecute his remedy under any of joint tortfeasors. Therefore, the respondents cannot escape from the liability to reimburse the loss suffered by the claimant.

6. Mr. Bodade, learned Advocate appearing for respondent no.2 – Insurance company vehemently submits that the Tribunal has rightly recorded the findings of negligence against the motorcycle rider and dismissed the claim petition. He would submit that in a claim filed under Section 166 of the Act, the pleading and proof of negligence is sine qua- non. In absence of the proof of negligence against the jeep driver, the claimant has no cause of action to raise the claim. He would invite attention of this Court to the spot panchnama [Exhibit-27] to contend that no signs of tyre marks of jeep found on the spot that itself indicates that the story made out by the claimant is false.

Mr. Bodade, learned Advocate would further submit that the claimant has not placed anything on record to show that he was practicing Advocate at the