P M PAULOSE Vs. ANISH CHANDRAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He filed the petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that he sustained serious injuries like supra condylar fracture and inter comminuted fracture of femur (L), apart from cervical spine injury in a road traffic accident that occurred on February 2, 2000 at Kinginimattom. According to the appellant he was riding on his scooter when another two wheeler owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 dashed against it. APPELLANT contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He claimed a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards compensation from the respondents.

(2.) THE Tribunal after considering the materials available on record which consisted of the oral testimony of Pws.1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A16 produced by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accident had occurred because of the rash and negligent driving by respondent No.2. Resultantly the Claim Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal.

(3.) HAVING perused the reasoning of the learned Judge in the award, we are not at all satisfied with the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the issue. As has been mentioned already, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant did clinchingly show that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, the finding entered by the Tribunal on issue No.1 in the award is liable to be set aside. We do so.