Important points:
The claimants are not entitled to get compensation unless they prove that the injury was sustained due to the rash and negligent driving of the opposite party or out of the use of a motor vehicle in a public place-The specific contention is that the appellant was not riding the offending motor cycle-The driver was acquitted in a criminal case is not a ground to reject the claim for compensation. The judgment in a criminal case is not a conclusive proof to disown compensation.

1. This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P. (MV)No. 459/2010 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha by the owner of the vehicle. The first respondent in this case sustained injuries in a motor accident and the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.33,790/- and directed the insurer to satisfy the award and reimburse the amount from the owner. Being aggrieved by that the owner of the motor cycle KL-38/2033 preferred this appeal.

2. It would be relevant and useful to refer the facts leading to the accident. The first appellant's case in the lower court was that on 21.02.2010 at 11.00 am, he was riding a motor cycle KL-2/J 164 through Kurukkanad-Cheppukulam public road, when he reached at Kampinipady, another motor cycle KL-38/2033 driven in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite side hit against his motor cycle. As a result, he sustained serious injuries. In the lower court, the rider of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement and contended that he was not the rider of the vehicle, but one K.M. Abdul Karim, Kochuparambil House, Thattakuzha (RW2) was the rider at the time of accident. The Police foisted a false case against him and the insurer is liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent was set ex-parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the offending vehicle, but contended that the rider was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of accident.

3. The claimant and insurer were satisfied with the award, they have not challenged this award by way of appeal, now they have not filed any cross objection. In this backdrop, it is not necessary to discuss the correctness of this finding with regard to the award amount. The claimant did not adduce any oral evidence, but his documents were marked as Exts.A1 to A8. Respondents evidence consist of oral testimony of RW1 and RW2 and documentary evidence of Exts.B1 to B3.

4. In a claim petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant has to prove that the injuries were sustained due to the rash and negligent driving of a motor vehicle. Here, the injured produced Ext.A2, the F.I.R in Crime No.40/10 of Karimannoor Police Station. Ext.A3 is the scene mahazar and Ext.A4 is the final report against the appellant. In the final report, it was stated that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving. The claimant is entitled to get compensation only on proving that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving by the opposite party. The final report shows that the injured was riding a motor cycle and when he reached at the place of occurrence, the offending vehicle hit against his vehicle, as a result, the first respondent in this appeal sustained injuries. The owner of the vehicle was examined as RW1 before the Tribunal, who contended that RW2 was the rider of a motor cycle, who was acquitted in the criminal case. There was no negligence from his side and he has no liability to pay compensation to the first respondent in this appeal.

5. The insurer contended that, RW1 in his evidence admitted that he was not holding a valid driving licence. The Karimannoor Police charge sheeted the rider of the vehicle and no contra evidence has been adduced in the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal to disprove the final report. There was violation of policy condition and the Tribunal rightly decided the case and awarded just amount as compensation and no interference is necessary regarding the quantum. But the appellant contended that RW2 was the rider at the time of accident and the Police falsely foisted a case against him. The rider of the motor cycle was acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, the insurer is liable to pay the compensation.

6. It is now well settled that the term negligence is an omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those consideration which ordinarily regulate the conduct of a human being would do or doing something which a pruden