The proper attribution of negligence in traffic accidents requires a thorough consideration of evidence, with the court upholding tribunal awards as just

JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the appellant/ 1st respondent in O.P (MV) No.113 of 2014 filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the award passed by the tribunal.

2. The claimant and the 2^nd respondent in the original petition are the respondents 1 and 2 herein, respectively.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 18.04.2013 at about 8.45 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02AG/1235 and when he reached at Ayathil Junction, another motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02AD/8645 driven by the 2^nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner, collided with the motorcycle ridden by the claimant, as a result of which the claimant sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming an amount of ₹6,00,000/- as compensation from respondents 1 and 2 in the original petition.

4. Before the tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 namely the owner and rider of the offending vehicle respectively, remained ex parte.

5. By the impugned award, the tribunal awarded a sum of ₹7,26,950/- as compensation with interest at the rate of 8% per annum and 1^st respondent who was the owner of the offending vehicle was directed to pay the award amount.

6. Challenging the compensation awarded by the tribunal, the appellant/1^st respondent in the original petition has preferred this appeal, contending that there was no negligence on his part in resulting in the accident and that the tribunal went wrong in directing him to pay compensation. 7. The learned counsel for the claimant on the other hand contended that, there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned award.

8. It is not in dispute that on 18.04.2013 at 8.45 pm, while the claimant was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL- 02AG/1235, another motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02AD/8645 ridden by the 2^nd respondent collided with the motorcycle ridden by the claimant at Ayathil Junction and the claimant sustained injuries in the said accident.

9. Ext.A2 is the final report filed by the investigating officer in the said crime, and it would show that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02AD/8645 by 2^nd respondent in the original petition. Though the appellant/1^st respondent in the original petition would contend that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the claimant, there is absolutely no material to substantiate the said contention. 10. The contention put forward by the appellant/ 1^st respondent in the original petition that he was not given an opportunity to contest the original petition is untenable. The records would reveal that, despite receipt of notice, he remained absent and did not take part in the proceedings. The evidence on record would show that the claimant in the original petition sustained injuries in the accident due to the rash and negligent riding of the 2^nd respondent herein, who was the rider of the motorcycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02AD/8645.

Though the appellant would contend that the amount awarded by the tribunal is exorbitant, he failed to substantiate the said contention. On the other hand, the amount awarded by the tribunal is found to be a just compensation. Accordingly, there is no merit in the appeal and the appeal is dismissed. No cost. Sd/-

M.B. SNEHALATHA JUDGE