1. Respondents 1 to 3 are served but there is no response. The 4th respondent appears through counsel.

2. The appeal arises from the award dated 01.01.2010 in O.P(MV) No.1609 of 2005 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam (for short, “the Tribunal”). The appellant claimed that on 24.01.2005 at about 9.10 a.m., while riding a motor cycle bearing No.KL-7/AE-5950 along the Perandur- Thammanam road and he reached place of the accident, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AT-3346 (for short, “the offending vehicle”) came from behind and hit the motor cycle which the appellant was riding. The appellant suffered fracture of the tibia and fibula, underwent inpatient treatment in Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam until 31.01.2005 and continued outpatient treatment. He claimed compensation from the respondents, owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle and its insurer (respondents 1 and 2, respectively) The 3rd and 4th respondents are the owner and insurer of the motor cycle which the appellant was riding at the relevant time.

3. The 3rd respondent remained absent in the Tribunal. The other respondents contested the claim petition. They denied the accident. The Tribunal held that the accident as pleaded by the appellant is not proved, that it is a 'self accident' and consequently, without going into the quantum of compensation payable to the appellant, the claim petition was dismissed. Hence the appeal.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that finding of the Tribunal regarding the accident is erroneous. It is argued that even if the view taken by the Tribunal is accepted, there is an 'accident' arising out of the use of a motor cycle and hence the Tribunal should have awarded compensation.

5. The 4th respondent, insurer of the motor cycle which the appellant was riding at the relevant time supported the award.

6. Exhibit A2 is the copy of wound certificate issued to the appellant, from the Lisie Hospital, Ernakulam. Exhibit A2 shows that the appellant was admitted in that hospital on 24.01.2005 with fracture of tibia and fibula. The history and alleged cause of injury stated in Ext.A2 is, “fall from bike by skid while another motor bike intercepted”.

The medical officer has opined in Ext.A2 that the injuries could be caused as alleged. Exhibit A12 shows that intimation was given to the local police from the said hospital on 24.01.2005 obviously because it was a medico legal case. It appears that the police did not record the statement of the appellant or anybody else acquainted with the facts of the case.

7. The appellant preferred Ext.A5, complaint dated 21.05.2005 in the court of learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ernakulam. That complaint was forwarded to the police for investigation under Section 156(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short, “the Code”). Based on that complaint, the police registered a case on 27.05.2005. Exhibit A1 is the copy of the first information report. P.W3 investigated the case and submitted Ext.A3, final report charging the 1st respondent for offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code for causing the accident by riding the offending motor cycle rashly and negligently. Exhibit A4 is the copy of scene mahazar and Exts.A6 and A7 are the copy of mahazars prepared by the police for the vehicles (allegedly) involved in the accident. Exhibit A13 is the copy of judgment in the said case which shows that the 1st respondent pleaded guilty to the charge against him, was convicted and sentenced to pay fine.

8. The appellant gave evidence as P.W1 and testified to his case regarding the accident. He claimed that the offending vehicle came from behind and hit the motor cycle which he was riding. P.W.2 is a witness to the accident. He supported the appellant.

9. The Tribunal referred to the history and cause of injury stated in Ext.A2, observed that name of the rider of the offending vehicle as stated by the appellant in his eviden