IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 843 of 2010(C) ---------------------------- OPMV.100/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.P.JOHNY, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.PAVUNNY, KALAN HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., EDAKKUNNI, OLLUR, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------- 1. AJO JACOB, S/O.THOMAS JACOB, PALAYOOR HOUSE, CHIYYARAM VILLAGE, KUNNAMKULAM DESOM, THRISSUR. 2. ANNIE JOSEPH, IX/530, PALAYOOR HOUSE, KANNAMKULANGARA P.O., THRISSUR. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, PARK HOUSE, ROUND NORTH, THRISSUR. ADV. SMT.S.JAYASREE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 843 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam in O.P.(MV)100/07. The claimant, a 57 year old man, sustained injuries in a road accident when the motorcycle ridden by him had a collision with a car. Originally the petition was filed u/s 163-A of the M.V.Act and it was subsequently converted into one u/s 166- A of the M.V.Act. But in spite of doing the same not even an amendment was made to the petition stating that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the car driver. It is true that in a Motor Accidents Claims case the Court need not be very technical. Now to crown all these things two documents were produced as Exts.A1 and A4, F.I.R. and charge sheet, both attribute negligence on the claimant. So the claimant had withstood a trial for negligence. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that it resulted in acquittal but no document is M.A.C.A. 843 OF 2010 -:2:- produced. Whatever it may be, it has to be stated that there is no pleading regarding negligence. There is absolutely no iota of evidence regarding negligence and the documents produced in support of the case are only confirming his negligence. Therefore when it is a claim u/s 166 of the M.V.Act, the Tribunal was perfectly justifiable in holding that the claimant is not entitled to the compensation. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-