The main legal point established is that the claimant is entitled to compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act if not at fault for the accident, supported by evidence of negligence and injury.

A. Ramamurthi, J.

1. The claimant in MACT OP No.2503 of 1998 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, IInd Small Causes Court, Chennai, has preferred the appeal aggrieved against the award dated 12.12.2000.

2. The case in brief is as follows:- On 29.12.1997 at about 2.30 p.m.P.W.1 Thanikachalam was proceeding in his motor cycle, Suzuki Samurai in Mount Road from south to north. When he was nearing the signal point, from east to west Kinetic Pride Motor Cycle bearing No.TN 07 C 8854 violating the signal rules came and dashed in the motor cycle and as a result of which, the claimant was thrown out and he sustained injuries. The claimant was taking treatment in the hospital for a period of 3 months and in spite of that, he could not drive the vehicle and claimed a sum of Rs.1,80,000/= by way of compensation.

The 1st respondent is the owner of Kinetic Pride Motor Cycle and the 2nd respondent is the insurance company. They contended that the claimant alone was responsible for this accident and in any view, the claimant has to prove the nature of injuries and the compensation claimed under each head.

The Tribunal on the basis of evidence of P.Ws.1 to 3 and Exs.A-1 to A-15 dismissed the claim petition and aggrieved against this, the claimant has come forward with the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. The points that arise for consideration are

(1)Whether the accident was caused due to the rash and negligent driving of Kinetic Pride Motor cycle bearing No.TN 07 C 8854?

(2)Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation amount and if so, to what amount and from whom ?

4. Points: P.W.1 is the claimant, P.W.2 is the doctor and P.W.3 is the Sub Inspector of Police. The 1st respondent is admittedly the owner of the Kinetic Pride Motor Cycle; but however, at the time of enquiry, she remained ex parte. The 2nd respondent insurance company alone contested the matter, but no evidence has been let in on the side of respondents. P.W.1 categorically stated the manner and circumstances in which the accident took place. P.W.1 fell down and sustained injuries in both legs and he was admitted to Government Hospital at Royapettah. Ex.A-1 is the copy of the accident register. P.W.1 alone gave a complaint under Ex.A-11. The vehicle in question was driven by one Vinodhini and the Sub Inspector of Police after investigation, filed a charge sheet under section 337 IPC and also under section 184 of Motor Vehicles Act in C.C.No.298 of 1998 on the file of IV Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Madras. It is admitted that the said Vinodhini admitted the offence and paid a penalty of Rs.1,200/=. These documents clearly indicate that the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was driven by one Vinodhini and she was responsible for the accident. Having admitted the offence, it is clear that P.W.1 was not at fault and, as such, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that P.W.1 was not responsible for the accident as concluded by the tribunal.

5. It is necessary to state that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim on flimsy and extraneous reasons. It appears that P.W.3 during cross examination had stated that during investigation the doctor had informed him that P.W.1 had fell down and sustained injuries and because of this, the tribunal came to the conclusion as if there was negligence on the part of P.W.1. It is necessary to state that the doctor who is said to have given information to P.W.3, was not examined as a witness. Under the circumstance, the evidence of P.W.3 was only hearsay and hence, much weight cannot be attached to the same. Further more, the tribunal ought to have rejected the testimony of P.W.3 in this regard. If really the doctor had informed P.W.3 that P.W.1 alone had fallen down and the accused was not responsible, then what was the necessity for the police to file a charge sheet against the said Vinodhini. Further more, the fact that the said Vinodhini herself had admitted the offence, pleaded