IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 719 of 2003 ----------------------- OPMV.586/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- ULAHANNAN, S/O. THOMAS, MAYAPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUKANI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.SOORAJ ELANJICKAL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH, S/O VASU, VILACKAPPADY HOUSE, KOZHIPPILLY.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. JOLLY JOHN, AVIRAPPATTU HOUSE, PAREEKKANNI.P.O, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD, BR. OFFICE, MADAPPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, M.C. ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.K.BALAKRISHNAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 719 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 586/00. It is alleged by the claimant that while he was riding in a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-7/K 7249, an autorickshaw hit on the back of the motor cycle resulting in injuries to him. Though the accident took place as early as in 1997, the claim petition was filed only on 10.5.00. 2. I am conscious of the fact that there is no limitation for filing a claim. But the claimant being a rider of a motor cycle, in order to succeed and establish that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the auto driver, the claim petition has to be filed within a reasonable time. Here the police after due investigation found that the claimant had driven the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and he was charge sheeted for being negligent. The claimant did not produce any document to show that he had been acquitted in that case. So the conduct of the claimant, as rightly observed by the Tribunal, is that he is suppressing the truth. The MACA No. 719/03 2 Tribunal also analysed the evidence of PW2. He appeared to be more loyal than the key. He wanted to project that the police registered the case against the claimant because the auto driver happened to be a relative of the police constable. It is too much for the court to accept that contention. So a total appreciation of the materials coupled with the factum of the protracted filing of an application and the police having found him negligent and the unconvincing evidence of PW1 and PW2 resulted in dismissal of the claim petition. I do not want to interfere with such a finding, which is based on materials. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 719/03 3