Legal heirs must provide sufficient evidence of negligence to overturn tribunal findings in accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the legal heirs of the deceased challenging the dismissal of the original petition by the tribunal in O.P.(MV) No.1664 of 2012 on the file of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 25.12.2011 at about 03.00 pm, while the deceased was riding a motor cycle, a jeep driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit down the motorcycle causing serious injuries to the claimant due to which he succumbed to the injuries. The legal heirs of the deceased approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The 1^st respondent is the RC owner, 2^nd respondent is the driver and 3^rd respondent is the insurer of the offending jeep. The 4^th respondent is the mother of the deceased. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer of the offending filed a written statement contended that charge sheet was laid against the negligent driving of the deceased and also for possessing liquor in excess quantity at the time of accident under the Provision of the Abkari Act . It was also contended that the amount claimed is exorbitant. Before the tribunal Exts.A1 to A8 and Exts.B1 to B7 were marked and Pws 1 to 3 were examined. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, the claimants have come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned standing counsel for the claimants and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that though the final report was framed against the rider of the motorcycle, evidence of PWs 1 to 3 were adduced to prove that negligence was on the part of the driver of the jeep. It is further submitted that a private complaint was also filed against the charge sheet. The learned counsel also submitted that ignoring the oral evidence adduced by the appellants, the tribunal has dismissed the claim petition finding that the negligence was on the side of the deceased and that there was no negligence on the part of the 2^nd respondent/driver of the jeep.

6. On the other hand, the learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that the claimants did not produce the FIR, Scene Mahazar, Inquest Report, Final Report and the Report to abate the charge which was produced by the respondents as Exts.B1 to B7. The claimants failed to produce these documents since the charge sheet was drawn against the deceased himself. It is further submitted that though PWs 1 to 3 were examined, the tribunal disbelieved their evidence finding that they were interested witnesses. The learned standing counsel for the insurer submitted that the deceased was trying to escape with an excess quantity of liquor and immediately after the accident, the police seized 28 bottles of Indian Made Foreign Liquor from the motorcycle and mahazar was prepared and the case was registered against the deceased as per Ext.B1. Ext.B6 final report was drawn by the police stating that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Since the claimants failed to prove that there was negligence on the part of the driver of the jeep, the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

7. The accident took place at around 03:00 p.m. on

25.12.2011. It is an admitted fact that the claimants failed to produce the FIR, Scene Mahazar, Inquest Report, Final Report or the report to abate the charge and all such documents were instead produced by the respondent as Exts. B1 to B7. Though a charge sheet was laid against the deceased, the claimants did not adduce any evidence by examining the Investigating Officer who had prepared Ext.B6 final report and Ext.B7 report to abate the charge. The deceased