Lack of evidence for negligence and composite claims can lead to rejection of compensation under motor accident statutes.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by appellant/claimant in O.P.(MV)

No. 1489/2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, challenging the award passed by the tribunal under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 19.04.2010 at about

5.55 a.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.45/B 8664 through Paravur - Kodungallur Sector of NH 17 ridden by the 1^st respondent and when reached at Arakulam, an unknown National Permit Goods Carriage came from behind and hit down the claimant due to which she sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹15,00,000/-.

3. The first respondent, being the owner-cum-rider of the motorcycle, remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The 2^nd respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and also submitted that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the unknown goods carriage. PW1 was examined. Exts.A1 to A15 and Ext.B1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a fixed sum of ₹25,000/- under Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act against the respondent insurer. The claimant has filed this appeal, challenging the tribunal’s denial of compensation under Section 166 of the .

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the tribunal has awarded only an amount of ₹25,000/- under Section 140 (2) of the Motor Vehicles Act . The claim put forward by the claimant under Section 166 of the was rejected by the tribunal, since the negligence was not proved. The learned counsel for the appellant/claimant submitted that the accident occurred while the claimant was pillion riding in the motorcycle and an unidentified lorry hit at the backside of the motorcycle due to which the motorcycle overturned. The petitioner was thrown away on the road and sustained serious bodily injuries. The learned counsel further argued that it was the specific case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and hence she was entitled to claim compensation from the insurer of the motorcycle, though the lorry hit at the rear side of the motorcycle remains unidentified. The learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the claimant was having 30% permanent disability and sought for a remand of the matter to the tribunal to enable the appellant to examine the first respondent rider, who is none other than her husband, to prove composite negligence.

6. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company submitted that though the claimant has stated that an unidentified lorry hit at the rear side of the motorcycle, the police failed in finding out the lorry and the charge sheet was filed as undetected. No negligence was proved against the rider as well as the driver of the unidentified lorry. Hence the tribunal has rightly rejected the prayer for compensation under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act .

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides. Originally the claim petition was filed under Section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act . Thereafter, the claim petition was amended incorporating the petition under Section 166 and Section 140 (2) of the . In the claim petition it was the specific case of the claimant that the accident occurred due to the composite negligence of the rider of the motorcycle and the driver of the lorry. In order to allege composite negli