IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2011 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 332 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.265/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP(MV). --------------------------------------------- K.G.MOHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KALARICKAL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------ 1. K.A.JOHNY, S/O.ANTHONIKUTTY, P.W.D. CONTRACTOR, KURUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, CHIRACKAL, KURUMBILAVU, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O.CHENDAPPAN, PANAVAL VEETTIL,PAZHUVIL, KATTOOR VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) FOR R1 &2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.332 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 16th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.265/1996 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Inrinjalakkuda. Alleging that he has sustained serious injuries in a motor accident, he filed the O.P. under Section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- against respondents 1 and 2 alleging that they are the owner and driver of a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KRF 955 which was involved in the accident. The Tribunal by the impugned judgment dated September 16, 2004 rejected his claim. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said judgment of the Tribunal. 2. The case of appellant/claimant as testified by him as PW1 before the Tribunal was that on March 24, 1987, while he was cycling along Chirakkal-Vellani public road at about 9.30 a.m., he was knocked down by a goods vehicle bearing Reg.No.KRF 95 causing him the following injuries : MACA.No.332/2005 2 Extensive soft tissue injury right lower limb with peeling off skin extensively from above and below knee and with scepticaemic, head injury with cerebral concussion and abrasions all over the body. 3. Respondents 1 and 2, the alleged owner and driver of the offending vehicle denied the accident. They further contended that they were not the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 4. PWs 1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 were marked on the side of the claimant. The second respondent was examined as RW1 and Ext.X1 the case diary of criminal case was also marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove that any accident as alleged by him has occurred and also that the respondents are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle and dismissed the O.P. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. 5. Heard the counsel for the claimant and the counsel for the respondents. 6. The following points arise for consideration : MACA.No.332/2005 3 1. Whether any accident as alleged by the claimant has occurred. 2. Whether respondents 1 and 2 were the owner and driver of the alleged offending vehicle at the time of the accident. 3. Whether the finding of the Tribunal rejecting the claim of the claimant can be sustained ? Point Nos. 1 to 3 7. Claimant produced Exts.A1 to A6 to prove his case. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR and Ext.A2 is the copy of the scene mahazar. Ext.A3 is the copy of the police charge and Ext.A4 is the copy of the wound certificate. The alleged accident occurred on March 24, 1987. The police did not charge any case against the second respondent at that time. On April 4, 1989 i.e. ( after 2 years and 10 months) claimant filed a private complaint before the Magistrate Court and on the basis of that private complaint, the police has registered a case, investigated and charge sheeted the case against the second respondent which ended in acquittal. Thereafter, he filed the O.P. before the Tribunal after nine years. The inordinate delay in filing the O.P. itself casts serious doubt regarding the version of PW1 about the alleged accident. Further, the criminal case charged against the second respondent has ended in acquittal. There is also no evidence to show MACA.No.332/2005 4 that first respondent was the owner and second respondent was the driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. The second respondent, the alleged driver of the offending vehicle categorically sworn as RW1 that he was not the driver and first respondent was not the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident. For all these reasons, we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the claimant has failed to prove that any accident happened as alleged by the claimant and that the respondents 1 and 2 were the owner and driver of the offending vehicle at the time of the accident and dismissing the O.P. In the result, 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.332/2005 5