IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 758 of 2007(D) ---------------------- OPMV.682/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER IN OP(MV) -------------------------------------------- BAIJU JACOB, W/O.JOSE, CHATHELY HOUSE, RESIDING AT PUSHPAGIRI DESOM, MELOOR VILLAGE, KALIKKAKUNNU P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ----------------------------------------------- 1. DEVASSYKKUTTY, S/O.ANTONY, CHAMAKKALA HOUSE, AMBALLUR P.O. 2. BINOJ, S/O.THANKAPPAN, MAKKIL HOUSE, PALAMURI P.O. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SOUTH JUNCTION, CHALAKUDY. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/10/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 806 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 758 & 806 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)Nos.681 and 682 of 2001. The claimant in O.P (MV).682/01 is the wife of the claimant in O.P(MV).681/01. The claimant in O.P(MV).681/01 is an employee of a Bank and his wife is a Secretary of an Aided Primary School Teachers' Co-operative society. 2. It is their case that while both of them were going in a scooter, an auto rickshaw collided with the same resulting in injuries to them. The Tribunal dismissed the applications on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident and the vehicle against which the case is registered is totally different and therefore it is not a genuine case which is to be entertained. The Tribunal found that immediately after the accident the rider of the scooter namely the claimant in O.P(MV).681/01 gave statement M.A.C.A. NOs.758 & 806 OF 2007 -:2:- before the police as follows: “ Thereafter one does not find this vehicle at all in the scene and another auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/C 8898 figures in the case. The insurance company would contend really he vehicle involved was KL-8/K 5932 and on finding that there is no valid coverage for that vehicle another vehicle has been substituted. 3. When the first information statement is filed basing upon the statement of the claimant, when the vehicle and owner are changed there must be a due enquiry conducted by the investigating agency and therefore unless there are concrete materials to convince the conscience of the Court it may not be proper to accept the changed version of the persons. There is a paramount duty cast upon the claimant to establish that factor. I can understand an ordinary rustic witness giving a wrong number. Here is a clerk employed in Bank and his wife is a Secretary of a M.A.C.A. NOs.758 & 806 OF 2007 -:3:- private aided teacher's society. They cannot ordinarily commit mistake and if they have committed a mistake they should have known it and thereafter should have given a revised statement before police showing the correct number. It is deposed by the claimant in O.P(MV).681/01 that he came to know about the change of the vehicle number only in June whereas the accident had taken place in February. The Tribunal rightly felt that there is something wrong and therefore held that there is no evidence to connect the accident properly. In a case of this nature the claimants ought to have been more vigilant and should have taken care to properly explain to satisfy the conscience of the Court. They did not do it. Therefore it may not be proper on the part of this Court to hold otherwise in the absence of any concrete materials to the contra. Therefore these appeals lack merit and they are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-