JUDGMENT

B. Vijaysen Reddy, J. - This appeal is preferred by the appellant - claimant challenging the order dated 14.12.2010 in OP.No.82 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cum Principal District Judge, Medak at Sangareddy.

2. The claim petition was filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the claimant claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident.

3. The averments in the claim petition are as follows:

On 16.01.2009, at about 10 AM, while the claimant was proceeding on his motor cycle bearing No.AP 23 M 3203 from Indrakaran Village, the driver of the Bajaj Auto Trolley bearing No. AP 23 W 2808 drove in high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed his motor cycle. Due to which, the claimant received fracture of clavicle bone, left occipital bone, head injury and other injuries all over the body. Immediately, he was shifted to Care Hospital, Nampally and he was treated as inpatient from 16.01.2009 to 27.01.2009. The claimant incurred a sum of Rs.30,000/- towards medical expenses. The injuries were not healed and the claimant was not able to perform his normal duties. The Sarpanch of the village lodged a complaint before the Sub-Inspector of Police, Indrakaran and a case in Cr.No.3 of 2009 was registered under Section 337 IPC against the driver of the crime vehicle and the same is pending before the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy. The respondent No.1 is the owner and the respondent No.2 is the insurance company of the crime vehicle and they are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation.

4. The respondent No.1, owner of the vehicle, filed a counter denying the averments made in the claim petition. The rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle was denied and negligence was attributed to the claimant. Further, the respondent No.1 stated that the claim petition is liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e. owner and insurance company of the motor cycle driven by the claimant. The respondent No.1 further denied the age, occupation, earnings of the claimant, nature of injuries and the treatment taken by the claimant and subjected him to strict proof of the averments in the claim petition.

5. The respondent No.2, insurance company, in its counter denied rash and negligent act on the part of the driver of the crime vehicle and attributed sole negligence to the rider of the motor cycle. The respondent No.2 filed an additional counter stating that the driver of the crime vehicle was not holding valid and effective licence at the time of the accident and contravened Rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. As per the registration certificate, permit and policy, the crime vehicle is a commercial vehicle and the driver should have LMV Transport driving licence, but as per the driving licence issued by the RTA, the driver is not holding the said licence and thus, the respondent No.1 has violated the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and as such, the respondent No.1 alone is liable to pay compensation and the respondent No.2 is not liable. It is further stated that as per the MLC issued by Care Hospital, the claimant was admitted on 16.01.2009 but as per FIR and charge sheet, the accident occurred on 18.01.2009, which shows that prior to the accident, the claimant got treatment, as such, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation. The owner and the insurance company of the motor cycle are also necessary parties, since there is a collision between the motor cycle and the auto trolley.

6. The claimant got examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Exs.A1 to A7. On behalf of the respondent No.2, only Ex.B1, insurance policy was marked and no oral evidence was adduced.

7. The tribunal below dismissed the claim petition by holding that there is a serious doubt with regard to the occurrence of the accident i.e. whether it occurred on 16.0