IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 301 of 2004() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1009/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------------------- SHAJAHAN, S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, NIZAMANZIL, AYOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVI KRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S) - RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAMALUDEEN KUNJU, S/O. KHADER KUNJU, IRSHAD MANZIL, PALLISSRIKKAL SASTHAMCOTTA, KUNNATHOOR, KOLLAM. 2. SALIM. M., S/O. MUHAMMED HANEEFA, NIZAR MANZIL, AYOOR. 3. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., UTHRADOM BUILDING, D.S. ROAD, PALAMON P.O., KOTTARAKKARA. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. KOSHY & THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.301 of 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T ---------------------- Thomas P. Joseph, J. Appellant, claiming to have sustained injuries in an accident involving motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KRQ-1625 on 30.8.1998 filed petition claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation from the respondents. Respondents 1 and 2, owner and rider of the motor cycle remained ex parte. Third respondent, insurer of the vehicle contended that the said vehicle was not involved in the accident, instead, motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02/C- 4551 was involved in the accident, but since that motor cycle had no valid policy of insurance at the relevant time, the appellant, in collusion with respondents 1 and 2 substituted that motor cycle with the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KRQ- 1625. That contention found favour with the Tribunal. Accordingly petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 2. We heard learned counsel for the appellant and the contesting respondent. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that there is no evidence to show that the vehicle involved in the M.A.C.A. NO.301 OF 2004 -: 2 :- accident is motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL-02/C-4551 as contended by the third respondent. It is also contended that the person who is said to have given the first information regarding the accident referring to the involvement of motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02/C-4551 is not examined by the third respondent. Counsel for the third respondent contended that dismissal of the petition is justified on facts and evidence. 4. It is true that one 'Kittu', who is said to have given the first information (Exhibit A1) is not examined. But, Exhibit A1 is the document produced by the appellant and marked in evidence on his side even without examining the person who gave the statement. Hence the appellant cannot contend that the third respondent cannot make use of Exhibit A1 without examining the person who gave that statement. Moreover, in the nature of the contention raised by the third respondent it was for the appellant to examine 'Kittu' and explain how a different vehicle happened to be mentioned in Exhibit A1. Exhibit A1 shows that the motor cycle involved in the accident is KL-02/C-4551. It is true that the police submitted final report (Exhibit A5) on 19.11.1998 stating that the vehicle involved in the accident is motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KRQ-1625. Tribunal has observed in M.A.C.A. NO.301 OF 2004 -: 3 :- paragraph 14 of the award that the motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KRQ- 1625 was produced by the second respondent before the police only on 13.9.1998 while the accident occurred on 30.8.1998. Tribunal has also observed that production of that motor cycle days after the accident was the result of deliberation and after thought. It is in the circumstances that the Tribunal rejected the evidence of the appellant as P.W.1 that motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KRQ-1625 was involved in the accident. Tribunal has considered the evidence and reached the correct conclusion. We do not find reason to interfere with the view taken by the Tribunal. Moreover, appellant has also not taken proper steps to issue notice to the second respondent. In the circumstances, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. Resultantly, appeal fails and it is dismissed. J.B. KOSHY, JUDGE. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv