IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2008 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1251 of 2005(C) ----------------------------------- OPMV.100/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- MANI, S/O.BHASKARAN, RESIDING AT THOTTATHIL HOUSE, KAYANADU KARA, MARADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SUKUMARAN, S/O.PAPPUTTY, RESIDING AT VAZHAYIL HOUSE, METHIPPARA BHAGOM, RAMAMANGALAM KARA, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOLENCHERRY BRANCH. ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1251 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)100/00. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-7D-4678 due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent he was thrown out and sustained injuries. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A7, B1 to B3 and C1 were marked. The Tribunal had elaborately considered the matter. The alleged accident took place on 16.9.99 and the law was set in motion only on 6.12.99 by filing a private complaint. There was inconsistency in the evidence regarding the Reg.No. of the vehicle involved. Meanwhile, the accused in the criminal case rushed to the Court and pleaded guilty. It was at the stage the Superintendent of Police has directed the Circle Inspector of Police to conduct a re-investigation. Thereafter the police on due enquiry reported that “the vehicle was not M.A.C.A. 1251 OF 2005 -:2:- covered by the insurance and so a complaint was filed implicating his friend Sukumaran for having driven the motorcycle KL-7-D 4678 with the petitioner as the pillion rider and consequently charge sheet happened to be filed since the authority was misled by the witness. The Circle Inspector was examined as RW1. Exts.B2 and B3 as well as Ext.C1 refer report was perused by the Court and the Court was absolutely satisfied that the accident had not taken place as alleged in the petition and therefore non-suited the claimant. A reading of the award would convincingly establish that everything has been considered only in the right perspective and a correct decision has been arrived at which does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-