IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH DECEMBER 2010 / 22ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1185 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1270/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ---------------------------------------- SUDHAKUMARAN NAIR V, S/O.VASUDEVAN NAIR VADAKKEI AYANIYARATHALA PUTHICHAKONATHU VEEDU ATHIYANNOOR, ARALUMMOODU PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. P.K.SARADAMMA, SARADALAYAM, PAPPANAMCODE PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST 2. GIREESHKUMAR, S/O.KRISHNAN NAIR T.C.41/2075 (I) MANACAUD PO,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.S.V.RAJAN, SRI.R.SUDHISH, SMT.M.MANJU, SMT.V.P.GEETHA KUMARY, SMT.SHIBI. K.P., SRI.A.N.PREMLAL, SRI.C.P.JAGADESH, SRI.K.R.RANJITH . THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 13th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in OP(MV)No.1270/1993. It is the case of the claimant that while he was sitting in a bike or a scooter bearing Reg.No.KBT-6216, a car bearing Reg.No.KLT-4449 came from behind in a rash and negligent manner, ran over his foot and hit on the scooter resulting in injuries to him. 2. The case of the defence is that of total denial. The trial court on the first occasion granted an award in favour of the claimant and in remand, this Court set aside that judgment and after the remand, the trial court has dismissed the application and it is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. Here is a case where the claimant would allege that on 19.2.1992 while he was sitting on his scooter projecting his leg and at that time a car came from : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 behind, hit on his foot and the scooter resulting in injuries to him. But the defence sets up of a case of total denial. The criminal law was set in motion by filing a private complaint which was preferred under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code that lead to filing of a charge sheet and after the full fledged trial, the trial court acquitted the accused expressing doubt about the very involvement of the vehicle involved in the accident. 4. Now, the following points loom large in this case. In the private complaint, the claimant would submit that he has filed a complaint before the police on 19.2.1992 itself but as they had not taken any action, he has filed a private complaint after 40 days. But he does not stick on regarding filing of the complaint before the police on 19.2.1992. 5. Secondly immediately after the accident, according to him, he was admitted in a hospital called St. Thomas Hospital from which he was referred to the Government Hospital. It is true that there is a recital in the Government Hospital's wound certificate that the was referred from St. : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 Thomas Hospital. But not even a scrape of paper is produced to establish that factor that he he was shown to any doctor in the St. Thomas Hospital. 6. Thirdly when a vehicle is involved in an accident and a private complaint is filed and if his vehicle had been damaged in the accident, certainly Motor Vehicle Inspector's Report has to be prepared. Here no Motor Vehicle Inspector's report relating to the car or the bike is seen prepared. This also goes a long way in deciding the fate of the case. 7. Lastly delay in lodging the FIR also creates suspicion in the mind of the court. With these in background, one has to analyse the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 in the case. PW2 is a person who is claiming to be an eye witness, but his evidence does not inspire any confidence at all for the following reasons. He does not remember the things that had transpired on that day. According to him, the involved vehicle is a scooter, whereas really it is a bike. He does not know who had taken him to the hospital. According to him, the accident had taken place 20 metres away from Aralummoodu junction. The next star witness is PW3. He is : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 also a mahazer witness in the police case. He would depose that the accident had taken place 200 metres way from the junction. One witness would say that the car involved in the accident is a black ambassador car, whereas PW3 would say that it is a dark green ambassador car. When he was confronted with his 161 statement, again he had changed his version and therefore it is clear that the evidence of PW3 also does not inspire much confidence. It is true that judgment of a criminal court is not binding on the Tribunal or this Court. But it can be seen from a reading of Ext.B1 judgment that the evidence adduced in that case was full of contradictions. That is why the criminal court marked Exts.D1 to D13 in the case. 8. So from an analysis of the materials and the circumstances discussed, it has to be held that there is delay in lodging the case. No documents are produced to show the place where he was admitted immediately after the accident. Though he says that he had filed a complaint on 19.2.1992, it does not come to the light. Even the nature of accident had also differed saying that the car has hit on : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 the handle bar. Non production or non preparation of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report coupled with the evidence of PWs 2 and 3, which are not intrinsically reliable and inherently probable, would also lead to the conclusion that all is not well with the case of the claimant and, therefore I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. So, the appeal is devoid of any merit and therefore it is dismissed, but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 6 : M.A.C.A.NO.1185 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T