JUDGMENT

The appellant is the petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No. 1531/2002 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara. It is a claim petition filed under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act (hereinafter parties are mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal).

2. The short facts are like this :

On 19.12.2002, the petitioner, who was the pillion rider in a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-4H 2515, while travelling through Chirackal-Pathiyara road, met with an accident. It is alleged that the 1st respondent, the motor cycle rider, driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and thereby, the petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. The petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- as compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 3, who are the owner, driver and insurer.

3. The 3rd respondent-Insurance Company filed a detailed written statement. According to the 3rd respondent, the claim petition is filed with false allegations. According to the 3rd respondent, petitioner is a tortfeasor, and he is not entitled for any compensation.

The Insurance Company also contended that the petitioner influenced the Police and managed to frame a false case by implicating the 1st respondent as its driver. The Insurance Company contended that in the wound certificate, the history and alleged cause of accident is treated as “fall from a motor cycle while riding at 7.50 am on 19.10.2001 at Chathiyara”. Therefore, the 3rd respondent-Insurance Company submitted that the claim petition may be dismissed.

4. To substantiate the case, claimant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. No evidence was adduced by respondents. After going through the evidence and the documents, the Tribunal found that the petitioner himself had driven the motor cycle in a rash and negligent manner and he sustained injuries and therefore, 1st respondent has no role in the accident. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, this appeal is filed by the petitioner.

5. Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the 3rd respondent.

6. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Police after investigating the case, submitted a final report as evident by Ext.A2. The counsel relied the judgment of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd.v. Pazhaniammal [2011 (3) KLT 648] and submitted that there is prima facie negligence on the part of the 1st respondent. The counsel submitted that absolutely no evidence is adduced by the respondents to rebut the prima facie negligence made out against the 1st respondent. The counsel submitted that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim petition. According to the counsel, the petitioner sustained very serious injuries. The counsel also submitted that the Tribunal erred in relying the first version to the doctor, when there is oral evidence adduced by PW1. The counsel submitted that the first version to the doctor is not evidence and moreover, the doctor is also not examined in this case to prove the same. When there is oral evidence of PW1, the Tribunal erred in relying the alleged first version in the wound certificate. The counsel submitted that even if that version to the doctor is accepted, there is nothing to disbelieve the case of the petitioner.

7. Admittedly, there is only the oral evidence of the claimant.

It is true that no evidence is adduced by the respondents. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR. Ext.A2 is the final report submitted by the Police. Based on these documents, the Tribunal found that the case of the petitioner is not believable. The Tribunal mainly relied the first version to the doctor, which is recorded in Ext.A6 wound certificate. I perused Ext.A6 wound certificate. As per Ext.A6, it is stated that one Mohanan brought the injured to the Hospital. According to the petitioner, the above-mentioned Mohanan is the younger brother of the petitioner. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the first version to the doctor is not p