IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JULY 2008 / 12TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1007 of 2004() ----------------------------------- OPMV.645/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------------- RAJEEVAN, S/O. KUMARAN, PERUMANATHOTTIYIL HOUSE, PUTHUPARIYARAM P.O., CHITTOOR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.P.P.THAJUDEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. JOSHY MATHEW, CHELLUPARAMBIL HOUSE, PUTHUPERIYARAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.J.JOY - R1 SRI.V.J.JAMES - R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) - R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1007 OF 2004 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No. 645/98. According to the allegations in the petition the claimant was a pillion rider in a motor bike and when it reached at Puthupariyaram another bike came from the opposite direction hit on his bike resulting in injuries to him. The Insurance Company contended that claimant was the rider of the bike and he did not have a valid driving licence and further that he was responsible for the accident. The Tribunal accepted the same and dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company. It appears from the materials available that right from the inspection the claimant has suppressed material facts. He filed a F.I. Statement describing himself as the rider. But when it reached the stage of claim application, he would contend M.A.C.A.No. 1007/2004 -2- that he was only a pillion rider. It was contended that he did not have a valid driving licence. He was asked to produce the same, he did not do it. According to him, the offending vehicle came in a high speed and hit his vehicle. Materials namely AMVI's report of the offending vehicle would show that there is no damages sustained at all to the vehicle. If a vehicle comes in a very rash speed and hit on another vehicle necessarily and naturally there should be damages for that vehicle. So the absence of damages on the alleged offending vehicle also goes a long way against the case of the claimant. The Tribunal was also very unhappy with the manner in which contention had been raised and that is why it observed “his allegation in the original petition that he was a pillion rider is a downright falsehood”. So the materials available are all against the claimant and therefore I cannot find fault with the well considered award of the claim tribunal holding against him. The appeal lacks merit and hence dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm