IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 11 of 2007(A) --------------------- OP(MV).760/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- ABDUL KADHER, AGED 59 YEARS, S/O KUNJAMBU, MADAVANAKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.KONDUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SMT.JEENA JOSEPH SRI.G.D.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. BADHARU, S/O KUNHUMUHAMMED, THEVARKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.THANISSERY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. GOPALAN, S/O GOPI, THOZHUTHINGAL HOUSE, P.O.KODUNGALLUR, KAVILKADAVU. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ALANGAD BUILDINGS, P.O.IRINJALAKKUDA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR 3RD RESPONDENT THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No.11 OF 2007 -------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(M.V)No. 760/2001. The claimant, a 50 year old coolie worker, sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal fixed compensation at Rs. 11,167/-, but dismissed the claim on the ground that he has failed to prove that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident involving the vehicle KL -8/1827. It is the case of the claimant that while he was loading cement in the cart, an Autorickshaw came and hit on him. The accident took place on 31.12.2000. He had set the law in motion by filing a private complaint where he had shown the number of vehicle is KL-8/1446. That complaint was referred by the Magistrate under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code and ultimately a charge was laid wherein the number of the vehicle involved is shown as KL-8/1827. There is no difference with respect to the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal found that it is not properly explained and it also found that there is M.A.C.A.No. 11/2007 -2- some anomaly with respect to the medical records and disallowed the appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me the wound certificate, the discharge card, the Motor Vehicle Inspector report and the Charge sheet. The Motor Vehicle Inspector report would reveal that the vehicle inspected was KL-8/1827 and the charge sheet also points out the number as the one mentioned in the MVI's report. The Tribunal would state that in Ext. A6 discharge card, while writing the case summary the office authorities has noted that injuries are sustained on 30/12 on R.T.A. But the wound certificate would show that it was 31/12 with the complaint “..............................................”. The discharge card also reveals the same. so it has to be held that it is most probably a mistake committed by the hospital authorities on that point. It is true that in the private complaint a different number is given. If it is to be a foisted case there was no necessity to give a different number and the police on investigation really found the vehicle involved in the accident was KL-8/1827 and the charge sheet and other documents also reveals the same and the driver of the vehicle is one and the same person. So there is nothing to suspect that at a different point of time the vehicle is substituted. The medical bills M.A.C.A.No. 11/2007 -3- also does not show any serious irregularities and the investigating agency has found that the vehicle involved in the accident was KL-8/1827. So in the light of the said fact, I hold that the Tribunal went wrong in coming to the conclusion and the claimant has not succeeded to prove that KL-8/1827 was involved in the accident. The Police authorities has filed a charge sheet against the 1st respondent. The claimant had deposed about the factum of negligence and therefore I find that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claimant is awarded a compensation of Rs. 11,200/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company is directed to deposit the amount within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of the judgment. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm