JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of October, 2022 This appeal is filed challenging an award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on

20.01.2012 in O.P.(MV) No.1313/2008.

2. The petitioners who are the legal heirs of deceased Shinoj has filed this appeal challenging the award dismissing the claim petition. The claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘M.V Act’) seeking for a compensation of Rs.5,30,000/- for the death of Shinoj, who was the son of appellants 1 and 2 and brother of appellants 3 and 4 in a motor accident occurred at 10.30 pm on 20.04.2008. The accident was occurred at Mankara and Crime No.165/2008 was registered on it’s basis by the Mankara Police Station.

3. The deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL 9 W 513 through Palakkad Shoranur public road and when reached near Mankara – Chavittilthodu, while turning the vehicle, it capsized and thereby he sustained injuries. The injuries were fatal and he succumbed to those within a short period. The original petition seeking compensation was preferred in the above context against the owner and insured of the motor cycle.

4. The first respondent did not turn up to contest the original petition and therefore declared ex-parte. The second respondent appeared and filed a written statement contending that the alleged motor accident was occurred due to the sole negligence of the deceased and therefore, petitioners who are his legal heirs are disentitled to get any compensation. The status of the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased was also disputed. The deceased was alleged as not holding a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. The amount claimed as compensation is also disputed for being exorbitant.

5. Evidence was adduced by the parties before the Tribunal and on appreciation of it, the Tribunal found that the petitioners are disentitled to get any sum as compensation under Section 163A of the M.V.Act, for the reason that Mr.Shinoj himself was riding the offending motorcycle and the accident was occurred due to his own negligence.

6. Shri.R.Sreehari, the learned counsel for the appellants has contended that in the F.I.Statement which formed the basis for the registration of the FIR and appended to it, it was stated by the first informant that the offending vehicle was ridden by one Mr.Vinod and the deceased Shinoj was travelling in it as pillion rider. Annexure-A4 is the Final Report laid by the Mankara Police on concluding the investigation in the case and the rider of the motor cycle was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Sections 279, 337 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’). The rider chargesheeted was none other than the deceased Shinoj.

7. According to the learned counsel in the FIS that formed the basis for registration of Anenxure-A1, the motor cycle which was involved in the accident was allegedly ridden by one Mr.Vinod and the victim was pillion riding on it. According to him an opportunity is required to be provided to him to adduce evidence by examining the investigating officer.

8. According to him, for the purpose the award in question needs to be reversed and the claim petition, remitted back to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration with specific direction to permit him to examine the witnesses, in the chargesheet.

9. Ext.A1 is only the F.I.R registered on the basis of an FIS lodged by the brother of deceased Shinoj, who had no opportunity to witness the motor accident. He had stated in the FIS that one Mr.Vinod was riding the motor cycle and Mr.Shinoj was pillion riding on it based on some hearsay information obtained from some source. After holding detailed investigation into the information furnished by the first informant that Annexure-A4 was laid, wherein the deceased himself was stated as riding the motor cycle and caused the accident by his rash and negligent riding.

10. Smt.Deepa George, the lea