C.T. Ravikumar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment in O.P.(MV).No.92 of 2006 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal whereby and whereunder the claim petition filed by the appellant was dismissed. The appellant filed the said claim petition under sections 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation to the tune of 1,25,000/- for the injuries sustained by him. In the claim petition, it was stated that on 9.12.2005 at about 3.30 p.m, the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-16/7635 whereon he was a pillion rider met with an accident. It was being ridden by the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the said vehicle. They were travelling through Attingal-Mananakku public road. When they reached Mangattumoola, the first respondent swerved the vehicle all of a sudden and on account of the same, the appellant fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. It is in the said circumstances that he filed the aforesaid claim petition alleging negligence on the part of the first respondent as cause of the accident and making necessary averments to make the second respondent liable to indemnify the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the said vehicle.

2. Before the Tribunal the first respondent though entered appearance, the second respondent insurance company filed a petition under section 170 of the M.V Act to resist the petition on all grounds. Evidently, the second respondent, the insurer, admitted the fact that the vehicle in question was having a valid insurance policy at the time of the accident. At the same time, the insurance company took up a contention that the accident occurred on account of the negligence on the part of the appellant-claimant who was a pillion rider on the motorcycle. The second respondent took up such a contention presumably taking note of the fact that the Doctor who examined him immediately after the accident and issued Ext.A5 wound certificate noted therein regarding the smell of alcohol on the appellant. Going by the contention it appears that the contention of the insurance company is that the policy is only an act policy. In such circumstances, a contention that the insurance company could legally avoid the liability to indemnify the first respondent, the owner-cum- rider of the motorcycle was taken up. As an abundant caution, a further contention that the amounts of compensation sought for under various heads are exorbitant and excessive was also taken. Based on the rival pleadings, the Tribunal formulated the following points for consideration.

1. Whether the 1st respondent owner-cum-rider of motor cycle KL-16/7635 rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner so as to involve it in the accident?

2. Whether the petitioner-claimant sustained bodily injuries in the accident? If so, what is the quantum of compensation amount payable to the petitioner-claimant?

3. Reliefs and costs.

3. Obviously, both sides did not adduce any oral evidence and in fact, on the side of the respondents no documentary evidence was also let in. On the side of the appellant, Ext.A1 to A10 series were got marked. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and appreciated the evidence on record and ultimately passed the impugned award dismissing the claim petition.

4. Heard both sides.

5. A careful scrutiny of the impugned award would reveal that as against the first point formulated for consideration viz., whether the first respondent owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner, the Tribunal, based on the evidence on record returned the finding in the affirmative. The Tribunal categorically found that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence on the part of the first respondent, the owner- cum-rider of the motorcycle. At the same time, it would reveal that the Tribunal also found that the pillion rider had contributed to the accident. In fact, it was found that the rider as also the claimant were equally respons