JUDGMENT This appeal by the claimant is directed against the judgment and award dated 21st March 2009, passed in MVC No.3953/2007, by the XIV Additional Judge, Court of Small Causes, Member, MACT, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore (SCCH.No.10), (for short, ‘Tribunal’), for awarding reasonable compensation on the ground that, the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the claim petition. 2. The appellant claims to be aged about 19 years and hale and healthy prior to the date of accident. It is the case of the appellant that he met with an accident at about 6:25 P.M. on 18-01-2007 on Bangalore-Mysore Road, in front of Rajarajeshwari Hospital, Bangalore, within the limits of Bidadi Police Station. 3. On account of the injuries sustained in the accident, the appellant filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the Tribunal, seeking compensation of a sum of Rs. 8,00,000/- against the Insurance Company and the owner of the offending vehicle. The said claim petition had come up for consideration before the Tribunal on 21st March, 2009. 4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant vehemently submitted that the Tribunal grossly erred in dismissing the claim petition, on the ground that the police have filed the charge sheet against the rider of the motor cycle/appellant herein when it ought to have appreciated the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, who have stated that the accident has occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driver of the Bus. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have held that the accident is on account of the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus and allowed the claim petition, awarding just and reasonable compensation. He further submitted that mere filing of charge sheet against the appellant by the Investigating Officer cannot take away the legitimate entitlement of compensation to the appellant on account of the grievous injuries sustained in the road traffic accident. When the appellant is acquitted in criminal Court, the Tribunal is not justified in disbelieving the oral evidence of PWs.2 and 3 and also the documentary evidence at Ex.P11. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is against law and evidence and all probabilities of case and hence, it is liable to be set aside and the prayer sought in the claim petition be allowed by awarding just and reasonable compensation. 5. Even otherwise, the impugned judgment and award passed by Tribunal is against law and evidence and all probabilities of case and hence, it is liable to be set aside and the prayer sought in the claim petition be allowed by awarding just and reasonable compensation. 5. As against this, Shri. A.M. Venkatesh, learned counsel appearing for Insurer/United India Insurance company Limited and Shri. S.V. Hegde Mulkhand/Oriental Insurance Company Limited submitted that the Tribunal, after due appreciation and evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, has rightly dismissed the claim petition, holding that the accident has occurred due to the negligent act on the part of the rider of the motor cycle, i.e. the appellant herein and not on account of the driver of the Bus, as contended by the learned counsel appearing for appellant. They further submitted that, the police, after due investigation, have filed the charge sheet against the appellant which is a conclusive proof and in the instant case, they have examined the driver of the Bus, which is involved in the accident. He has deposed that the accident has occurred due to the fault on the part of the appellant himself as he suddenly applied the brake and thereby caused the accident. Therefore, the evidence of PW1 cannot be accepted. They further submitted that, the learned counsel appearing for appellant, except making oral statement, has not produced any documentary evidence to substantiate the prayer sought in the claim appellant. Therefore, the reasoning given by the Tribunal is just and proper as the same is given after critical evaluation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file. 6. After going through the material available on file, including the pleadings of the parties, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the appellant, also the learned counsel appearing for both the Insurers and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on file, it is seen that, the Tribunal dismissed the claim petition filed by appellant, holding that, the appellant has utterly failed to substantiate his case that the injuries sustained by him is on account of the road traffic accident caused by the driver of the Bus and not on account of his own negligence. 7. 7. After going through the entire material available on file, it can be seen that, it is the case of the appellant that, on the ill-fated day, the appellant has sustained bodily injuries in the motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18-01-2007 at about 6.25 p.m. on Bangalore-Mysore Road in front of Rajarajeshwari Hospital within the limits of Bidadi Police Station on account of rash and negligent driving of the Bus bearing No.KA-01/ F-3563 by its driver. It is his case that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Bus. In order to prove his case, he has given his evidence as PW.1 before the Tribunal on oath and has reiterated the same facts as has been narrated in the claim petition with regard to the occurrence of accident. He has categorically stated that the driver of the offended Bus drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner with high speed and dashed against his motorcycle and thereby caused injuries over his body. In this connection, he got marked copies of FIR and complaint at Ex.P.1, Mahazar at Ex.P.2, IMV Report at Ex.P.3, Wound certificate at Ex.P.4, Charge sheet at Ex.P.5, Judgment copy in CC.1272/2007 at Ex.P.11 & Deposition of DWs.1 to 3 at Ex.P.12. 8. Upon perusal of all the material available on file, the Police have registered the case against the rider of the motorcycle i.e., PW.1 the appellant herein and ultimately filed charge sheet against him on the ground that he was responsible for the cause of the accident. The respondent No.2 got examined its Divisional Manager as RW.1 and deposed in detail reiterating the averments of the written statement of respondent No.2. The respondent No.4 got examined its Senior Assistant as RW.2 and he spoke about policy copy at Ex.R.1 and reiterated the averments of written statement of respondent No.4. The respondents have also got examined the driver of the Bus involved in the accident and by way of rebuttal evidence, he has consistently deposed that the accident has taken place due to the fault of the appellant himself as he suddenly applied the brake and thereby, caused the accident. Upon considering the evidence of PW.1 no doubt, he has given evidence reiterating the averments of the appellant but his version in the evidence and pleading does not corroborate with documentary evidence on record. Upon considering the evidence of PW.1 no doubt, he has given evidence reiterating the averments of the appellant but his version in the evidence and pleading does not corroborate with documentary evidence on record. The appellant has also got examined one Dilshad, the pillion rider of the motorcycle who is none other than the sister of appellant and she has given evidence supporting the version of appellant. Admittedly, she being the sister is an interested witness to the appellant and her version also does not corroborate with documentary evidence on record. The appellant has also tried to establish his case by examining one Sheik Ahamed as PW.3 and he states that he was travelling in the said BMTC Bus and was sitting in the rear side. He admits during the course of cross-examination that he was unable to see the happening of events in the front of the Bus by sitting at rear side. Under the given circumstances, his evidence does not come to the aid of the appellant to believe that the accident took place at the fault of the driver of the said Bus. 9. Further, it is pertinent to note that the petition filed by the appellant is under Sec.166 of Motor Vehicles Act and as such the heavy burden lies upon the appellant to prove and establish that the accident took place only at the fault of the driver of the said Bus. The Police records and evidence of the said driver of the Bus clearly reveal that on the basis of complaint of the said driver, the Police have registered the case and after due investigation, submitted charge sheet against the appellant on the ground that he was alone responsible for the cause of the accident. That being the fact, the evidence of the respondents goes to show that they have clearly substantiated their case by placing rebuttal evidence to believe that the accident took place only at the fault of the appellant himself. Unless the appellant is able to discharge his burden of proof with material evidence, the onus does not shift on the respondents to substantiate the fact that there is no fault of the driver of the Bus in causing the accident. Unless the appellant is able to discharge his burden of proof with material evidence, the onus does not shift on the respondents to substantiate the fact that there is no fault of the driver of the Bus in causing the accident. Considering all these relevant facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the oral and documentary evidence on record placed by the appellant are not sufficient to believe that the accident took place at the fault by the driver of the said Bus. On the other hand, there is ample evidence on behalf of the respondents on record to believe that the accident took place only at the fault of the appellant himself. Considering all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal held that the appellant has utterly failed to prove and establish that there is a fault on the part of the driver of the Bus in causing the accident. Accordingly, it answered Issue No.1 in the negative and dismissed the claim petition. 10. The discussion, reasoning and finding given by the Tribunal at paragraphs 9 and 10 are after critical evaluation of the entire material available on its file and the same being just, fair and proper, I do not find any justification or good ground to interfere in the well considered and well reasoned judgment and award passed by Tribunal. Hence, interference in the same is unwarranted. 11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the appeal filed by appellant is liable to be dismissed as being devoid of merit. Accordingly, it is dismissed. Office to draw award, accordingly.