IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 6TH JUNE 2008 / 16TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 631 of 2004 ------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.694/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- K.R.VIJAYAN, S/O.RAGHAVAN, AGED 39, KARUMATHADATHIL HOUSE, SHIVAJI JUNCTION, KANJIRAMATTOM KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHAJIMON P.G., PUTHENPURAKAL HOUSE, ELAMDESOM P.O. THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. KRISHNAKUMAR.P. PARIKAPALLY HOUSE, MARADU P.O. ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE - R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 631 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 6th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 694/00. The case of the appellant is that while he was riding on a scooter, a motorbike which was coming from the opposite side hit on the scooter resulting in serious injuries to him. The Insurance Company raised the contention that the motorcycle was not involved in the accident. The scooter overturned on account of the negligence of the appellant. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials held that the case set up by the Insurance Company appears to be true and dismissed the same. The appellant has challenged this decision before this court. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the Tribunal has erred in analysing the materials and therefore it requires interference. The Tribunal did not accept the case of the appellant for the following reasons. It held that in the wound certificate nothing is mentioned about the motorbike at all and it is only stated as a scooter accident. The Tribunal also found that MACA No.631/04 2 the first information statement was given only on the next day and it reached the court only three days after such recording. According to the Tribunal it is also a suspicious circumstances. 3. I am conscious of the fact that there were minor delays here and there. But it shall not be a ground for throwing out a claim. What surprises me is the Motor Vehicles Inspector’s report with respect to the bike. The Motor Vehicles Inspector inspected both the vehicles on the same day, i.e., 10.4.00 whereas the accident took place on 6.4.00. He was able to find out damages to the scooter but not even a scratch to the motorbike. It has to be remembered the averment in the petition is that the motorbike came from the opposite direction in a high speed hit on the scooter. When such is the impact necessarily, there would have been atleast a dent or a scratch on the motorbike. Nothing was seen by the Motor Vehicles Inspector also. There is not even a case that the vehicle has been repaired or corrected prior to the inspection by the Asst. Motor Vehicles Inspector. So it is a telltale circumstance, which adds support to the reasoning given by the Tribunal. It is true that in the wound certificate, being not an encyclopidia of the facts, one is not expected to record everything but the cause of accident if it is hit by a bike MACA No.631/04 3 necessarily it will be the first thing that would have been mentioned to the Doctor. Similarly when he was examined as PW1 before the court, the Tribunal finds him not acceptable because he was not able to say even the direction of the vehicle, though he is a resident of that locality. The Tribunal felt that everything is in a mess and there is no satisfactory evidence to establish the factum of negligence or the involvement of the motorbike in the accident. I cannot hold that this is an incorrect finding for the reasons I have already stated. Therefore, there is no ground to interfere with the award passed by the Tribunal. The MACA lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps