IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR. TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 769 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.4/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SANDEEP PAUL, S/O. PAUL,PLAPPILLIL HOUSE, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, ARAKUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJU ABRAHAM PULPARA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. SHIBU VARGHESE, VELIYANNOORKARAN, KAKKADASSERY, ENANALLOOR, PERUMATTAM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. MERCY PAUL, PLAPPILLIL HOUSE, ARAKUZHA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, T.H.TOWERS, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24-6-2008, THE COURT ON 1-7-2008, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.2819/2003 IN M.A.C.A 769/2003 DISMISSED. 1-7-2008. SD/- C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE. SD/- V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR &V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.769 OF 2003 ---------------------------------------------- Dated, the Ist July, 2008. JUDGMENT Mohanan, J. The petitioner in O.P.(MV) No.4 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellant herein who challenges the award dated 31.7.2003 in the above case by which his application for compensation filed under section 166(1)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act was dismissed. 2. The appellant preferred the claim petition alleging that he was travelling as a pillion rider on a scooter bearing Reg.No.KL-7/U 1160 driven by the Ist respondent along Arakuzha - Muvattupuzha road and when the vehicle reached at Perumballoor, the vehicle ran over a heap of granite chips and the vehicle capsized causing grievous injuries to the appellant/petitioner. The accident occurred at about 8 p.m. on 2-9-1999 and he was treated as inpatient at Malankara Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery during the period from 2-9-1999 to 11-9-1999. MACA 769/2003 -:2:- The accident occurred due to the negligence of the Ist respondent. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the vehicle and the 3rd respondent is insurer. Thus the petitioner claimed a total compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and also sought for an order to fix the liability of the respondents jointly and severally to pay compensation. 3. During the course of the trial, respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte. Only the 3rd respondent resisted the claim by filing written statement. The case of the 3rd respondent was that the vehicle which involved in the accident was insured by them and that the policy issued in favour of the 2nd respondent was valid as on the date of the accident. Resisting the application, the insurer submitted that the application is not maintainable and denied the allegation that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the Ist respondent. The police has already referred the case and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent. The stand maintained by the insurance company is to the effect that the crime was registered on the basis of a belated MACA 769/2003 -:3:- private complaint and that too at the instance of a close relative of the petitioner/claimant and the compensation claimed is excessive and it was the specific case of the insurance company that the petitioner himself was riding the scooter at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to his own negligence and therefore he is not entitled to get any compensation. 4. Based upon the rival contentions, the Tribunal framed four issues and the memo of evidence in this case consists of the documentary evidence such as Exts.A1 to A8; Ext.B1; Ext.X1 and the oral testimony of PW-1 and RW-1. 5. After considering the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case, and on appreciation of the evidence and materials, the court below came into a conclusion that the appellant is not entitled to get any amount of compensation as the claim raised is a false one and that the appellant has attempted to fabricate evidence to support the claim and accordingly the application was dismissed with cost. It is the above order of dismissal is challenged in this appeal. MACA 769/2003 -:4:- 6. Going by the materials and evidence on record, it appears that an accident had occurred on 2-9-1999 at about 8 p.m. Ext.A8 is the accident register-cum- wound certificate issued from Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery which would show that the injured was examined at that hospital at 9.20 p.m. on 2-9-1999 with the history of road traffic accident (scooter accident at 8 p.m. on 2-9-1999 at Perumballoor). In Ext.A8, it is shown that one M.R.Rajan, Malayil House, Perumballoor, has taken the injured to the hospital. Suffice to say that in Ext.A8, the name and address of the patient is shown as Sandeep Paul, S/o Paul, (scooter ridden), Plappillil, Arakuzha, Muvattupuzha. (emphasis supplied). The specific case of the appellant is that he was a pillion rider and it was the Ist respondent who was riding the scooter. But the Ist respondent had not sustained any injury and he was not admitted in any hospital and those facts assume importance because if the Ist respondent had ridden the vehicle at the time of the accident as alleged by the appellant, he would have in all probabilities sustained MACA 769/2003 -:5:- injuries and taken to the hospital. If he escaped unhurt, he should have been the person taking appellant to the hospital. There is no explanation about this. Further, appellant's close relative is the complainant and the accused-first respondent is none other than his employee (driver). The details borne out from Ext.A8 certificate are the earliest version regarding the incident and there is no cogent evidence or reason to disbelieve or overlook the materials and details contained in Ext.A8. So, the Tribunal, based upon the above documents came into a conclusion that the appellant/petitioner himself was the rider of the scooter at the time of the accident and all other stories are fabricated so as to strengthen the prayer for compensation. Besides the above documents, showing the falsity of the appellant's case, there are other circumstances which are sufficient to throw away the appellant's case. Going by the records, it can be seen that the appellant was conscious at the time when he was admitted and examined by the doctor in the hospital and no intimation was given to the police station regarding MACA 769/2003 -:6:- the accident. Suffice to say that instead of approaching the police authorities, the appellant had managed to file a private complaint, i.e., CMP No.4230/1999 through his relatives directly before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Muvattupuzha. Ext.X1(b) is the copy of the complaint available in the case diary in FIR 436/99. The said FIR was registered in the Muvattupuzha police station, on receiving Ext.X1(b) private complaint from the JFCM-I, Muvattupuzha under section 156(3) of Cr.P.C. The said FIR was registered on 13-9-99 on the allegation that the Ist respondent has driven the vehicle No.KL-7/U 1160 along Muvattupuzha- Perumballoor road in a rash and negligent manner and that the vehicle capsized and caused hurt to Sandeep Paul, who was traveling on the vehicle as a pillion rider. The Tribunal came into the conclusion that the complaint was instituted after due deliberation and in collusion with the Ist respondent. In the said complaint, it is also stated that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the accused therein and the appellant sustained injuries and the local MACA 769/2003 -:7:- residents took the injured to the hospital. From the above version, the complainant took a slight variation as evidenced by Ext.X1(c) statement recorded by the police under section 161 of Cr.P.C. There the case was that the rider of the scooter accidentally ran over a heap of granite chips because of the dazzling headlight of the lorry that came from the opposite side. On realising the falsity of the case, the police had referred the crime as evidenced by Ext.A4 refer report. So, the entire facts and circumstances involved in the case show that the appellant/petitioner had set up a false and bogus claim for compensation by utilizing the circumstances by which he sustained injury because of his own negligence. The Tribunal has come into a correct conclusion that the appellant has sustained injuries because of his own negligence while he was riding on the vehicle involved in the accident, and further found that the respondents are not liable to pay compensation. Thus the Tribunal held that the application is devoid of bona fides and the claim raised is false one and the appellant/petitioner MACA 769/2003 -:8:- has attempted to fabricate evidence to support the claim raised in the application and accordingly, the application was dismissed and the appellant/petitioner was directed to pay a sum of Rs.1000/- as cost to the 3rd respondent. 7. Though the learned counsel for the appellant argued elaborately, no case is made out to take a different view from that of the learned Tribunal and we uphold the finding arrived on by the Tribunal. In the result, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE. V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE kvm/- MACA 769/2003 -:9:- V.K.MOHANAN, J. No.... Judgment/Order Dated: