JUDGMENT

Dismissal of the claim petition filed by the appellant, simply observing that he had not chosen to implead the owner and insurer of the motor cycle in which he was travelling as a pillion rider, is the subject matter of challenge in this appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company.

3. The learned counsel for the appellant points out that the appellant was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor cycle on 21.01.2001 and while so, he was knocked down by a 'mini van' owned by the first respondent and insured by the second respondent at about 1.30 p.m. Serious injuries involving fracture, tenderness on the left hypochondrium, left lumbar region, hypogastrium, multiple injuries, splenic injuries were sustained, which led to the claim petition seeking for compensation under different heads.

4. The evidence adduced before the Tribunal consists of Exts.A1 to A4 series. Inspite of the involvement of the vehicle as borne out by Ext.A1 FIR and admission of the policy by the second respondent, the Tribunal simply dismissed the claim petition, holding that in a case like this, it was obligatory for th