IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 553 of 2001() ------------------------------- OPMV.440/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------ BINOJ C. MATHEW, SON OF MATHEW, AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHELADIPUTHENPURA HOUSE, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. JOSE P.ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, THANIMOLIEL HOUSE, KOLENCHERRY P.O. 2. PETER MATHEW, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 43, MUPPATHIYIL, HOUSE, MUDAVOOR KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE,. MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE NO.1 DEEPTHY BUILDINGS, P.B. 2972, PALLIMUKKU, KOCHI 16. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER - R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. --------------------------------------- M.F.A.No.553 OF 2001 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 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) No.440/1998. The claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the claimant has not succeeded in proving the case. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. It is the case of the claimant that he was a pillion rider in a bike driven by one of his friends Peter Mathew. Though he was injured, no First Information Statement was given nor any crime was registered and the ball was set in motion only after one month that too in the form of a private complaint. Ordinarily when a bike capsizes, the rider as well as pillion rider may sustain injuries and if one has not sustained any injury, he would be the first person to take the other to the hospital especially when they are friends. The pillion rider as PW1 would depose that he was unconscious when he reached the hospital. Therefore, he did not state anything. But, the wound certificate M.F.A.No.553/01 2 itself would reveal that he was totally conscious. When a question was put to him why there was delay in informing the police, he does not answer. Though he was inpatient for large number of days, he did not inform the police nor any of his well- wishers did it so and therefore, it is a telling circumstance to show that what he speaks is not true. Similarly, he has examined one PW2 who is doing cattle business and according to him, his autorickshaw was parked on the side of the road where the accident took place. That autorickshaw did not carry the so called injured to the hospital. It was somebody who had taken him to the hospital. The witness is residing at a distance of 7kms from the place of accident. 3. The Tribunal was convinced that he is not speaking the truth. It is a settled principle that when the trial court has appreciated the evidence, it cannot be slightly brushed aside for the reason that it has the opportunity to see the demeanour of the witness and also the manner in which he deposed before the court. On an analysis of the same, the Tribunal found that it is not safe to rely upon the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 to come to a M.F.A.No.553/01 3 conclusion that the accident had taken place as spoken to by the claimant. I do not find any ground to interfere with such a decision on facts and therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed but without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. smp M.F.A.No.553/01 4 M.N.KRISHNAN, J. M.F.A.No.553 OF 2001 J U D G M E N T 09.06.2008