The court held that the lack of a valid driving license alone does not negate liability in accident claims, stressing the need for comprehensive evidence evaluation.

JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the claimants in O.P (MV)

Nos. 2050 and 2051 of 2006 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, against the dismissal of the award passed by the tribunal. The respondents herein are the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: On

28.06.2006, while the claimants were travelling on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-4 V-6078, an autorikshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-7/BC 7249 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit against the motorcycle. Thus both the claimants who were rider and pillion rider, sustained injuries.

3. The 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd respondents were the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle respectively. The first and second respondents remained ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent filed a written statement admitting the accident but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying liability stating that it was due to negligence from the part of the claimant. PWs 1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A16 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed both the claim petitions for the reasons that the rider was not having any valid driving licence and the owner, driver and insurer of the two wheeler were not made parties.

4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the auto-rickshaw and the tribunal dismissed the claim petition finding that the rider of the two wheeler was not having a valid driving licence. Further submitted that the tribunal did not go into any other details regarding the disability certificate nor the amount claimed and seeks for a remand of the matter to the tribunal for fresh consideration. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company on the other hand submits that since the tribunal found that there was no valid driving licence for the rider of the two wheeler, dismissed the claim petition.

5. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

6. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the accident occurred on 28.06.2006, FIR was lodged on 30.06.2006 and the charge sheet was drawn against the driver of the auto-rickshaw on 27.07.2006. The claimant mounted the box and testified that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the auto- rickshaw. The doctor was examined as PW2 in order to prove Ext.A13 disability certificate. The tribunal found that as per the scene mahazar, the accident and negligence were not proved and that the rider of the motorcycle, who was not having a valid driving licence had ridden the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner moved on to the wrong side and thereby rammed on to the auto-rickshaw. No evidence has been adduced by the insurance company nor the driver of the auto-rickshaw to prove that there was negligence on the part of the rider of the two wheeler. The tribunal, merely on the basis of the documents produced, has come to the conclusion that the negligence was on the rider of the motorcycle. Such a finding by the tribunal is not supported by any documents nor evidence. The charge sheet was admittedly drawn against the driver of the auto-rickshaw. Hence, I find that there was no proper consideration of evidence, oral or documentary. Considering the afore facts, I find that the matter has to be remanded back to the tribunal for a fresh consideration.

7. Accordingly both the appeals are disposed of. The award dated 10.05.2011 in O.P.(MV) Nos. 2050 of

2006 and 2051 of 2006 passed by the tribunal is set aside. The tribunal is directed to re-co