JUDGMENT:

1. Aggrieved by the decree and order dated 16.05.2012 in MVOP No.549 of 2008 passed by the Chairman, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal- cum- VIII Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) at Vijayawada (for short 'the Tribunal'), the National Insurance Company Limited rep. By its Divisional Manager, the 2nd respondent in MVOP preferred this appeal questioning the award passed by the Tribunal.

2. The parties will be referred to as arrayed in the MVOP for convenience.

3. The claimant had filed a petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation of Rs.4,00,000/- for his injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 30.01.2008 at 18.30 hours.

4. The claimant’s case is that on 30.01.2008 at about 18.30 hours, while the claimant was going on his Bajaj CT 10 Bike bearing No. A.P. 16 AN 3775 from his home and reached Swagruha Foods, Bandar Road, Vijayawada, and going towards Pandit Nehru Bus Station, Vijayawada, the 1st respondent, who was the rider-cum-owner of Hero Honda CD-Deluxe bearing No. A.P. 16 BB 4637 (hereinafter be referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) rode the same rashly and negligently at high speed, without blowing the horn, and dashed the claimant. As such, the claimant fell and sustained injuries. Immediately after the accident, he was shifted to Help Hospital, Vijayawada, for treatment. , The Police, Suryaraopet police station, registered the report as a case in crime No. 18 of 2008 under Section 338 of the Indian Penal Code. The claimant was a practising R.M.P. doctor at Krishna Lanka, Vijayawada, for several years. Due to the accident, he has paralysis in the right hand and, as such, is unable to do his duties regularly without the help of others and is not in a position even to put his signature.

5. The 1st respondent remained exparte.

6. The 2nd respondent/ insurer of the offending vehicle filed a written statement denying the averments made in the claim petition and further contended that the particulars furnished by the petitioner were not tallied with the series of policies issued by it and, as such, there is no prima facie obligation to compensate the petitioner. It is further contended that no information about the accident was provided to the insurer, either by the offending vehicle's owner or the Police, per Section 158(6) of the M.V. Act. It is further contended that the claimant fell on the road due to the bike skid. Still, the respondents falsely implicated the offending vehicle in getting compensation. When the claimant's wife enquired about the incident, the people at the hospital said it was due to the skid of the claimant’s motorcycle. She sent her brother to enquire at the place of the incident and came to know that the first respondent was responsible for this accident due to the offending vehicle’s rash and negligent riding, which are all false; moreover, the complaint was given on 01.02.2008, and the first respondent was arrayed to the claim petition for the sake of compensation. Hence, the second respondent/

insurance company is not liable to pay compensation.

7. Based on the pleadings, the Tribunal has formulated relevant issues.

To prove the claim, on behalf of the claimant, PWs.1 to 3 got examined and marked Exs.A.1 to A.16; on behalf of the second respondent, RWs.1 and 2 got examined and marked Exs.X.1 to X.3.

8. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the offending vehicle and awarded compensation of Rs.2,30,000/- together interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of the petition till the realization date against respondents.

9. I Heard both the learned counsel and Perused the record.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant/ 2nd respondent contended that the Tribunal failed to consider Ex.X.2-hospital intimation received by the Police, wherein it was mentioned that the accident occurred due to a bike skid. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that F.I.R