The court determined that the negligence of the driver led to the appellant's injuries, warranting compensation despite initial dismissal.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/first claimant challenging the dismissal of the impugned award dated 02.02.2003 in O.P.(MV) No.733 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam. The second claimant is the father and next friend of the first claimant, who sustained injury in the motor vehicle accident. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimants, on 22.09.1991 at about 9.00 a.m., while the first claimant was travelling in his bicycle along the Kollam – Thiruvananthapuram N.H., a car bearing registration No.KLR-9094 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the bicycle and as a result, he sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹1,00,000/-.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, they remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent - insurer filed a written statement, admitting the insurance policy but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. They contended that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the claimant who was riding the bicycle. Before the tribunal, PW1 and PW2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there was no negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. Challenging the dismissal of the claim petition, 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 for the appellant submitted that the appellant was aged 15 years at the time of the accident and that, while he was crossing the road from south to north on his bicycle, the car, which came from east to west, hit him. The learned counsel further submitted that Ext.A2, the final report filed by the police as a refer report, was disputed and PW1 and PW2 were examined.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, however, submitted that there was inconsistency in the deposition of PW2 as well as the First Information Statement filed in this case. It was further submitted that the car was not coming from east to west but was moving from west to east, and that the appellant, who was riding a bicycle, was crossing the road from south to north when the accident occurred. The place of occurrence is stated to be 28 cm south of the northern tar end. It was argued by the learned standing counsel that the appellant has failed to establish negligence on the part of the driver of the car. From the evidence adduced by the appellant and the manner in which the accident has been narrated in the claim petition, it is not clear as to the exact direction in which the appellant was travelling or whether the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the car and hence the tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised on both sides.

8. The insurer, in the written statement, filed before the tribunal, admitted the occurrence of the accident but contended that the accident did not occur due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the car and that it was caused by the negligent riding of the bicycle by the first claimant himself. PW1, the appellant/claimant, wa