Anil K. Narendran, J.

1. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV) No. 844 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, an application filed by the 1st respondent herein under section 166 of the motor Vehicles act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident which occurred on 04.05.2009.

2. On 04.05.2009, While the 1st respondent was riding a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-7/AH-2330 through Thankalam-Thrikkariyoor public road, from south to north direction, a car bearing Registration No.KL-5/Q-6129 owned by the 2nd respondent herein and driven by the appellant hit the motorcycle and the 1st respondent sustained serious injuries. Alleging that, the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal, claiming a total compensation of Rs. 10,00,000/- under various heads.

3. The appellant filed written statement, contending that, he was not the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. The said vehicle was in a workshop since 01.05.2009 and was not in a running condition as on 04.05.2009. The 1st respondent sustained injuries due to his own negligence and as such, he is not entitled to claim any compensation. The appellant contended further that, the amount of compensation claimed under different heads is on a higher side.

4. The 2nd respondent herein, the registered owner of the offending vehicles, has not chosen to file any written statement.

5. Before the Tribunal, Exts, A1 to A14 were marked on the side of the 1st respondent claimant. The appellant has not chosen to adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

6. After considering the pleadings and materials on record, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the car by the appellant. The tribunal found that, at the time of the accident the said vehicle was having no valid insurance coverage and as such, the appellant and the 2nd respondent were jointly and severallu held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the 1st respondent. Under different heads, the Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs. 7,49,700/- and permitted the 1st respondent to recover the said amount together with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization and proportionate cost from the appellant and the 2nd respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the award passed by the Tribunal, the appellant has filed this appeal, under section 173 of the Act.

8. During the pendency of this appeal, the 2nd respondent filed I.A. No. 276 of 2016, an application under order 41, Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking an order to receive certain additional documents. The 2nd respondent would contend that, he sold the offending vehicle to a third party much prior to the accident and that, the appellant was the owner-cum-driver of the said vehicle at the time of accident. The 2nd respondent would also point out that, in connection with the accident a crime was registered by kothamangalam police as crime No. 1027/09, in which the offending vehicle was taken into custody by police, which was later released to the appellant on executing a kychit before the judicial first Class magistrate Court, kothamangalam. In the said kychit the appellant has admitted the ownership of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. In order to substantiate the aforesaid contention, the 2nd respondent would rely on Annexure I application dated 15.06.2015, submitted before the Sub inspector of police, Kothamangalam, under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and also Annexure II communication issued by the Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam dated nil, enclosing therewith a copy of the kychit executed by the appellant before the Magistrate Court.

9. We heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellant the learned counsel for