IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 193 of 2007(D) ----------------------------------- O.P.(M.V).NO.687/2004 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER & 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIDDIQUE, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, S/O. ATHRUMAN KUTTY HAJI, CHERIYANGAL HOUSE, ELETTIL VATTOLI AMSOM DESOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. P.C. MUHAMMED IQBAL, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O. AHAMMED KUTTY HAJI, MUBARAK MANZIL, THACHAMPOYIL P.O., P.C. MUKKU, KADAVOOR AMSOM, DESOM. ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM FOR R1. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.193 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)No.687 of 2004. The claimant alleges that he sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.46,000/-. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. It is the case of the insurance company that it was not a road accident where the vehicle insured by the company was involved. Learned counsel very strongly contends before me that the first information report was registered only after 52 days from the date of accident and the police after due investigation referred the case and therefore according to the learned counsel, this is a false case which had come out of on account of the collusion between the owner-cum-driver plus the claimant. But the facts of the case would reveal that when the police referred the case and filed a refer report a notice was issued and the claimant filed a protest complaint, which was taken cognizance by the Magistrate and on appearance, the MACA 193/2007 -:2:- accused in the case pleaded guilty and he was sentenced to pay fine for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. So a competent court of criminal jurisdiction has convicted a person for having committed the offences under Section 237 and 338 of the I.P.C., I am conscious of the fact that a judgment of a criminal court is not having binding effect on a civil court. But it will have a persuasive effect. Under these circumstances, when a case was conducted, the claimant mounted the box and gave evidence in support of his contentions and that evidence coupled with the judgment of the criminal court makes it clear that the accident had taken place as alleged. But nothing has been brought out to rebut the evidence which is tendered by the claimant. A mere averment in the written statement that there is fraud and collusion between two persons is not sufficient. It is a settled principle of law that fraud cannot be inferred by conjectures and surmises. I am equally conscious of the fact that there will not be any direct evidence to prove fraud but it has to be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. At least surrounding circumstance must be made available before court to draw such an inference. The non-examination of any witness on the side of the respondents would show that they have miserably failed to prove that factum. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal when it has appreciated the evidence which was rather one sided and arrived at a MACA 193/2007 -:3:- decision regarding the accident and the negligence. So the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-