Claimant must prove negligence of the vehicle rider to succeed in a compensation claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the appellant/claimant challenging the dismissal of the impugned award dated 05.11.2014 in O.P. (MV) No.775 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. According to the claimant, on 11.09.2009, while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing registration No.KL-09-X-6423 from Palakkad to Puthuppariyaram, a pedestrian, under the influence of alcohol and in an inebriated state, jumped in front of the motorcycle and as a result, the rider of the vehicle lost control and thereby the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-.

3. Though the first respondent, the owner-cum-rider of the offending vehicle appeared through counsel, no written statement was filed. The second respondent – insurer contended that the petitioner is the father of the insured and cannot therefore be considered as a third party vis-a-vis the insured vehicle. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A10 & B1 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 rider of the motorcycle. 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 though Ext.A3 charge sheet was produced before the tribunal, the tribunal failed to take into consideration the cause of the accident. It was pointed out that the rider of the motorcycle, who was the son of the injured, was not found to be negligent by the tribunal. The learned counsel for the appellant however submitted that the documents produced along with the claim petition would prove that the vehicle was driven by the rider in a rash and negligent manner.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that though the claim petition was originally filed under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act , it was subsequently converted to one under Section 166 of the Act. However, no amendment was carried out to the pleadings, including the claim petition, so as to allege negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle.

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

8. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that the tribunal found that the claimant failed to prove negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. On a perusal of the claim petition also, there is no allegation of negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle. It is true that Ext. A3 charge sheet was produced by the claimant along with the claim petition, however, the claimant/injured has not alleged any negligence on the part of the rider of the vehicle.

In order to claim compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act , it is mandatory that negligence on the part of the rider is proved by the claimant for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. Admittedly, there is no allegation of negligence nor any evidence adduced other than the charge sheet to prove negligence on the part of the rider of the motorcycle. Since the claimant failed to prove negligence, the tribunal dismissed the claim petition without awarding any compensation. I do not find any reason to interfere with the same.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-