licence to ride a motor cycle. Evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of RW1, Exts.A1 to A8, B1 and X1. The contention raised in the appeal was considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal noticed that in connection with the accident police has registered a crime against the 2nd respondent in the original petition as Crime No.473/2003 of Kunnamkulam Police Station and that after investigation, the police laid charge against the 2nd respondent. Ext.A1 is the copy of FIR and Ext.A5 is the copy of the charge report which according to the Tribunal indicated that at the time of accident, the 2nd respondent Jayakumar was riding the motor cycle and his rash and negligent driving caused the accident. Materials on record indicate that the 2nd respondent Jayakumar was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident. Evidence adduced by the appellant is not sufficient to prove that the claimant was riding the motor cycle. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal is justified in holding that the accident happened because of the negligence of the 2nd respondent in the O.P. I find that no sustainable grounds
