The necessity of robust evidence in establishing vehicle involvement and negligence in motor accident claims.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in OP(MV) No.975 of 2002 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the appellant/claimant, on 01.05.2000 at about 04.30 pm, while the petitioner was riding the motorcycle, another motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-2/A-5023 ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle ridden by the petitioner. As a result of the accident he had sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The first and second respondents/the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle remained ex parte before the tribunal. Original respondents 2 and 3 were deleted and present respondents 2 and 3 were impleaded in the later stage of the proceedings. The third respondent, insurer filed a written statement, admitting the accident but contending that the vehicle involved had no insurance coverage on the date of accident and thereby denying the liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A13 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the original petition. Challenging the dismissal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The accident and the charge sheet drawn against the 1^st respondent are admitted. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that, though in the FIS and FIR registered on 05.05.2000 the number of the offending scooter was shown as KL- 2/B-5635, the next day, noticing the mistake, the petitioner gave a subsequent statement in which the scooter number was correctly given as KL-2/5023. It was also further submitted that the incorrect number of the scooter was given to the police while recording the FIS due to an inadvertant omission on the part of the claimant and that the correct number of the scooter was KL- 2/5023. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that since Ext.A9 charge sheet was laid against the rider of the scooter, the tribunal ought not to have dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant. The learned counsel further submitted that the vehicle mahazar in respect of the offending scooter KL-2/5023 was produced in order to substantiate the contention that the vehicle involved in the accident was KL-2/5023.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company on the other hand submitted that the AMVI report in respect of the offending vehicle was not produced to prove the damages sustained to the vehicle. Ext.A7 was only the vehicle mahazar in respect of the offending vehicle, and it did not reflect any damages to the vehicle involved in the accident. Since the AMVI report in respect of the vehicle has not been produced, there is no evidence to substantiate the contention that the scooter bearing registration No. KL-2/5023 was involved in the accident. It was further contended that the claimant had not proved negligence on the part of the rider of the scooter and hence the tribunal rightly dismissed the claim petition and the interference of this court is not called for.

7. I have considered the contention raised by both sides.

8. On a perusal of the award and connected documents produced, it is seen that the vehicle alleged to have been involved in the accident is KL-2/5023. In the FIS given on 05.05.2000, the number of the scooter was shown as KL-2/B-5635. Immediately on the next day, the claimant gave an additional statement and the number of the scooter was changed as KL-2/5023. No evidence was produ