A tribunal must properly assess allegations of negligence based on all evidence presented; failure to do so warrants remand for fresh consideration.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P(MV) No.612 of

2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 03.06.2006 at about 6.30 p.m., while the claimant was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing reg. No. TN39AB6601 ridden by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, which hit against a tree on the roadside at Puchode, Adiperanda, and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹4,00,000/-.

3. The first and second respondents, the owner and the rider of the offending motorcycle respectively, filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denying the negligence attributed on the part of the second respondent. The second respondent claimed that he had a valid driving licence at the relevant time of accident. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy, disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. In the additional written statement the third respondent contended that the claimant was not the pillion-rider on the offending vehicle, actually was riding the vehicle at the relevant time of accident. The second respondent, according to them, was brought in as the rider of the motorcycle. Before the tribunal, PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A14 and X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the claimant failed to prove negligence on the part of the second respondent and thus dismissed the claim petition. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal, the claimant has come up in appeal.

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

5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant submitted that the accident occurred on 03.06.2006, while the appellant was pillion riding on a motorcycle ridden by the second respondent. The learned counsel further submitted that the tribunal, solely relying on Ext.A3 wound certificate, found that the appellant was not pillion riding, but in fact, riding the motorcycle. Even though Exts.A1 FIR and A6 charge-sheet were produced before the tribunal, the tribunal discarded the aforesaid documents and found that the claimant failed to adduce any independent evidence to substantiate the truth of his testimony. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the tribunal found that the claimant himself was riding the motorcycle registered in his wife’s name and thereby caused the accident and sustained bodily injuries. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the insurer had not adduced any evidence in order to contradict the charge-sheet drawn against the second respondent. Absolutely, there was no evidence adduced on the part of the insurer to disprove the case put forward by the claimant. The learned counsel for the appellant also sought for remand of the matter to the tribunal to adduce evidence to prove the same.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that Ext.A6 wound certificate, issued by Crescent Hospital where the appellant was immediately taken after the accident, recorded the history that the patient was riding a motorcycle and fell. The learned standing counsel for the insurer also submitted that the first respondent was the wife of the claimant, who was the insured as well as the registered owner of the vehicle. The second respondent/driver was the cousin of the claimant. Hence there was coll