IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 824 of 2003(P) ----------------------- OPMV.2005/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN M.V.O.P. ------------------------------------------------- JOHNSON, S/O.ANTHONY, ALAPPATTU HOUSE, P.O.CHETTUPUZHA, PULLAZHY, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.DINESH MATHEW J.MURICKEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS IN M.V.O.P. ------------------------------------ 1. JOSHY ANTONY, S/O.ANTONY, AIRMBOOR HOUSE P.O.KIZHUPPILLIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHAJI, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN NAIR, KUTTICHIRAVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.ERAVU, THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO,LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PATTALAM ROAD, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 824 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 2005/98. The claimant's case is to the effect that while he was walking along the road, the bus driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition came from behind and hit him resulting in injuries to him. On the basis of a private complaint, case was registered and on summons the bus driver entered appearance, pleaded guilty and was convicted and sentenced under sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code. The Tribunal though considered those documents, did not accept the same for the following reasons. Immediately after the accident the claimant himself had gone to the hospital and has reported that he had a fall from his scooter. He was having the smell of alcohol. One Dr.Sreenadh was the Doctor who treated him and who prepared Ext.A5. This Doctor had been examined as RW1. He had deposed before the court that the claimant came of his own and there was nobody else who accompanied him. It is also stated that the information entered into in Ext.A5 was gathered by the Doctor MACA No. 824/03 2 personally. So the evidence of RW1 revealed that the petitioner had sustained injury by falling down from the scooter on 28.5.98 at 1.30 p.m. Later a private complaint was filed on 19.6.98. The Tribunal felt it as an after thought to claim compensation. 2. When a person who had sustained injury in an accident had gone to the hospital by himself and had narrated the manner in which the accident had taken place and which has been proved by examining the Doctor who had recorded the same, one cannot held that the Tribunal was incorrect in not accepting the case of the claimant regarding the case of hit by a bus. I do not find any ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 824/03 3