Judgment Amaresh Kumar Lal, J. The insurer of the auto rickshaw, bearing registration no. BR-06D-3557, has preferred this appeal against the judgment and Award dated 16.04.2008 and 24.04.2008 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal-cum-3rd Additional District Judge, Muzaffarpur, in Claim Case no.211 of 2000 by which the appellant insurer has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.1,35,000/- with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of filing of the claim petition till the realization of the amount. Binay Kumar, the injured, filed petition under Sections 140 and 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of rupees two lacs due to loss of lower part of his right leg in accident which occurred on 31.03.2000 by auto rickshaw bearing no.BR-06D 3557 while he was traveling in it, he got the injury when the vehicle was dashed with another tanker which was coming from opposite direction. Due to the accident the applicant has to loose his right leg as it was fractured severely in the accident. The owner of the auto rickshaw appeared and filed written statement mentioning therein that the vehicle was insured by the Oriental Insurance Company (appellant) and the insurer will be liable to the claim, if any. The Oriental Insurance Company appeared and filed its written statement, admitting in paragraph 6 of the written statement that the vehicle bearing registration no.BR-06D 3557 was insured on the date of alleged accident. On the basis of the pleadings of the party the following issues were framed:- I. Whether the claimant has cause of action or right to file the case ? II. Whether the accident in question was met due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the driver of the vehicle No. BR-06D-3557 and Binay Kumar was injured? III. Whether the vehicle concerned was insured with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. On the alleged date and time of accident ? IV. Are the applicant entitled to award or awards as claimed ? 2. After the evidence the learned Tribunal has found that the insurer of the auto rickshaw was liable to pay the amount of compensation vide the impugned order. 3. Ltd. On the alleged date and time of accident ? IV. Are the applicant entitled to award or awards as claimed ? 2. After the evidence the learned Tribunal has found that the insurer of the auto rickshaw was liable to pay the amount of compensation vide the impugned order. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that first information report has been lodged by the claimant himself in which he has stated that he was traveling on the auto rickshaw which was dashed with another vehicle, the tanker, coming from opposite direction. During evidence he has been examined as AW-I and has stated that on 31.03.2000 while traveling on the auto rickshaw a tanker dashed against the auto rickshaw and caused injury to the applicant. In this view of the matter, it is definite case of the appellant that it was the tanker which was negligent and caused the accident. In that event the insurer of the auto rickshaw should not have been held liable to pay the amount of compensation to the victim of the occurrence. In support of her contention she has relied upon decision in the case of Minu B. Mehta and Anr. Vrs. Balkrishana Ramchandra Nayan and Ors.; 1977 ACJ (SC )1248 and in case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vrs. Bimlesh and Others; 1991 ACJ 36. 4. The learned counsel for the claimant has submitted that four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the appellant as well as documentary evidence has also been adduced. The learned Tribunal has considered the evidence and has found that it was the auto rickshaw which was negligent and due to negligence of the auto rickshaw the occurrence took place which caused injury to the claimant. 5. It appears from the certified copy of the first information report of Manihari P.S. Case no. 38 of 2000 (Exhibit-I/A) that while the informant (claimant) was traveling with the tempo on N.H.28 near Kazi Inda Chowk a tanker, number could not be known, coming from opposite direction rashly and negligently dashed against the tempo and ran over which caused injury in his right leg. First information report is an important document showing the occurrence. The medical certificate is Exhibit-1. Exhibit-2 is the final report and Exhibit-3 is the certificate with respect to handicap of the claimant. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimant. First information report is an important document showing the occurrence. The medical certificate is Exhibit-1. Exhibit-2 is the final report and Exhibit-3 is the certificate with respect to handicap of the claimant. Four witnesses have been examined on behalf of the claimant. A.W.1, Binay Kumar, is the injured and is claimant of this case. He has stated that the tanker dashed the auto rickshaw causing him injury. A.W.2, Mantun Kumar, is an eye witness. He has stated that near Kazi Inda Chowk he saw that a tempo bearing registration no.BR-06D 3557 was going and all of a sudden it lost its balance. In the meantime, from the eastern side it dashed against another vehicle which caused injury to Binay Kumar in his right leg. A.W.3 is not the eye witness. A.W. 4 has stated that tempo was going and the tanker dashed against it causing injury to Binay Kumar. In his cross-examination he has stated that he did not see as to whether the driver of the tempo was injured or not. 6. Neither the driver of the tempo has been examined on behalf of owner of the tempo nor any witness was examined on behalf of the owner or the insurer to show that it was the tanker which caused the accident. 7. After considering the evidence, the learned Tribunal has held, relying on the evidence of AW 2, Muntun Kumar, that it was the auto rickshaw which was rash and negligent dashed with another vehicle causing severe injury resulting into amputation of right leg of the claimant. 8. In case of Minu B. Mahto and another (Supra) it has been held that negligence has to be proved by the claimant. The onus lies on the claimant to prove that the death or injury arose out of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. Case of United India Insurance Co. Ltd. (Supra) is also on the point of negligence. In the case in hand it has been held by the learned Tribunal that it was the auto rickshaw which has caused the injury to the appellant. In the facts and circumstances of this case, these decisions are not helpful to the appellant. It is settled principle of law that if two views are possible and one is taken by the Tribunal which is also possible, that should not be disturbed. In the facts and circumstances of this case, these decisions are not helpful to the appellant. It is settled principle of law that if two views are possible and one is taken by the Tribunal which is also possible, that should not be disturbed. The view taken by the learned Tribunal appears to be plausible. 9. Considering the facts and circumstances, I do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and Award. This appeal is dismissed. The parties will bear their own cost. The appellant may withdraw the statutory money deposited in the Court and to make the payment to the claimant-respondent.