IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 38 of 2003(B) ---------------------- (AGAINST AWARD DATED 28/11/2002 IN OPMV.88/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM) .................... APPELLANT / 2ND RESPONDENT IN M.V.O.P. ------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ST. MARRY VILLA, MEDICAL COLLGE (P.O.), ULLOOR, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, REGIONAL OFFICE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 018. BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 IN M.V.O.P. --------------------------------------------------------- 1. P. KUMARAN, S/O. LATE R.P. AYYAPPAN, PAERUMKULATHINGAL HOUSE, PALALPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. N. VENUGOPALARU, S/O. NARAYANARU, PANDARATHIL, RAMESH BHAVAN, PIRAPPANKODE POST, VENJARAMOODU, NEDUMANGAD. 3. BALACHANDRAN NAIR, TRINZ COTTAGE, ANAD MURIYIL, PAMBA POST, PALODE VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.UNNIKRISHNAN FOR R2 SRI.V.SJYOTHILAL PRASAD FOR R2 SRI.SUBRAMANIAN POTTI.R FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON 15/07/2008 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.38/2003 ORDER ON IA NO.212/2003 IN MACA NO.38/2003 DISMISSED. SD/- (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) 15/07/2008 SD/- (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.38 of 2003 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T Ramachandran Nair, J. The appellant is the Insurance Company challenging the claim of 1st respondent that the injury was caused to him on account of motor accident with the scooter that belonged to 2nd respondent, which was later transferred to 3rd respondent. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company and have gone through the award passed by the MACT. 3. According to the Insurance Company, the accident does not appear to be genuine and the MACT has also passed the award without identifying the scooter rider who caused the accident or without any conclusive evidence that the scooter insured by the appellant was involved in the accident. We find force in this contention because even though accident occurred on 12/02/1996 at Thiruvananthapuram and 1st respondent was admitted in the hospital with injuries, he did not appear to have reported about the accident to the hospital authorities. Even a police complaint itself MACA No.38/2003 -2- was filed more than a month after the accident, that was on 14/03/1996. No explanation was furnished before the MACT for the delay in reporting the matter before the police. The Insurance Company was also kept in the dark about the accident. The 1st respondent had sustained injuries on the leg and he was quite conscious after the accident. Therefore nothing prevented him from reporting the accident to the hospital authorities, who in turn would have intimated the matter to the police for registering the crime. The complaint filed before the Magistrate was referred to the police. The police had also investigated the case based on the belated information furnished by the 1st respondent. The police also could not identify the vehicle involved in the accident. In the circumstances, the contention of the Insurance Company is that no award could be passed against the complaint. However, we find from the MACT's award that the Tribunal has accepted the theory of accident involved with the scooter just based on the evidence of the claimant. The Tribunal, obviously, has not critically examined the case even though the accident occurred in day time in a busy area of Thiruvananthapuram town and there is no independent witness and no one had reported the matter to the police. However, since MACA No.38/2003 -3- the Tribunal has passed the award and under interim orders, Rs.25,000/- was released to the claimant, we allow the appeal by reducing the total compensation including interest to Rs.25,000/-. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (V.K.MOHANAN, JUDGE) jg