IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JUNE 2011 / 1ST ASHADHA 1933 MACA.No. 1313 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.129/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- K.P. RAJAN, S/O. LATE CHATHU, AGED 51 YEARS, VAZHAYIL HOUSE, P.O. KAVUMBHAGAM, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMILNADU TRANSPORT BUS, COIMBATORE, (TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., COIMBATORE DIVISION, METTUPALAYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE-64104). 2. SELVARAJ. S., DOOR NO.153, ANNANAGAR, COIMBATORE. 3. THIRU BASHEER MUHAMMED, C/O.TAMILNADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION LTD., COIMBATORE DIVISION, METTUPALAYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE-64104. ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRAN, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1313 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.129/2000 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery. In this appeal, he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated January 17, 2006 dismissing his O.P. claiming a compensation of Rs.1,23,200/- for the damage caused to his lorry bearing Reg.No.KRC 1049 in a motor accident. 2. The accident happened on June 17, 1998 at about 6.30 a.m.. The lorry bearing Reg.No.KRC 1049 belonging to the claimant was parked on the Pazhaveli-Chengalpettu Bypass road. At that time a van bearing Reg.No.TN-27/A-3817 came from the back side of the lorry and over took the same. At the same time the offending bus bearing Reg.No.TN 38/376 belonging to the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation came from behind and dashed against the lorry and the van. Extensive damage was caused to the lorry. The claimant filed the MACA.No.1313/2006 2 O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.1,23,200/- towards the damage caused to his lorry against respondents 1 to 3, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation and the driver of the bus. 3. The first respondent, the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation through its Managing Director filed a written statement admitting the accident, but contended that the accident occurred on June 19, 1998 and that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the bus. The second respondent as well as the third respondent, the drivers of the bus remained absent before the Tribunal. Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident happened on June 17, 1998 as alleged by the claimant and that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the damage caused to the lorry of the claimant and dismissed the O.P. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal. 4. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for the Insurance Company. MACA.No.1313/2006 3 5. The following points arise for consideration : 1. Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred as alleged by him on June 17, 1998 and that there was no satisfactory evidence to prove the damage caused to his lorry and consequently dismissing the O.P. can be sustained. 2. Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation from the respondents. 6. Though the claimant has stated that it was on June 17, 1998 the accident happened, it is admitted by the respondent that the accident happened actually on June 19, 1998 which is proved by Ext.A1, copy of the FIR. Therefore, the only question for consideration is whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation from the respondents. No evidence was adduced by the claimant to show that the accident happened due to the negligence of the driver of the offending bus. Further, the claimant produced only Ext.A2, the Survey Report by a private Surveyor. The said Surveyor was also not examined. Under these circumstances, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the claimant has failed to prove the damage caused to his lorry and dismissing the O.P. That being so, the claimant is not entitled to any compensation from the respondents. MACA.No.1313/2006 4 For the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1313/2006 5