IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 13TH JUNE 2008 / 23RD JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 578 of 2004() --------------------------------- OP(MV) NO.1188/1997 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM ..... APPELLANT/CLAIM PETITIONER -------------------- DEENA KURIAKOSE, W/O. BIJU JAMES, MAZHUVANCHERIL HOUSE, PULLARIKUNNU BHAGOM, MALLOOSSERIL KARA P.O., PERUMPAIKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.RAVINDRA BABU RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ------------------------ 1. AJU JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH THOMAS, PATTUKALAYIL HOUSE, PANAMBALLIL, NAGAR P.O., ELAMKULAM VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE UNITED INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, BANK OF BARODA BUILDING, PALACE ROAD, P.B.NO.228, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.578 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)No.1188 of 1997. The case of the claimant is that she was travelling in a maruti car driven by the petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.1190 of 1997 and when it reached the place of the accident, an ambassador car driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner, hit on the petitioner, resulting in injuries to her and others. But the negligence aspect was denied by the first respondent as well as the insurance company. 2. In the trial court, PWs. 1 to 3 and RWs. 1 and 2 were examined. On appreciation of the materials, the Tribunal held against the claimants holding that they have not succeeded in proving that the driver of the ambassador car was negligent to cause the accident. It is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the insurance company. Learned counsel for the claimant would contend that the Tribunal MACA 578/2004 -:2:- has erred in appreciating the evidence in the proper perspective and therefore it has arrived at a wrong conclusion. The court below has analyzed the evidence of PWs 1 to 3 and RWs 1 and 2. PW1 was only a young boy aged 12 years, who had not been even questioned by the police. He had a version in the chief examination that the driver of the car had consumed alcohol and that was the reason for the accident. The Tribunal rightly found that after 7 years a statement by a person who has no such case previously cannot be accepted. 4. PW2 is a person who would depose that he was coming behind the ambassador car and he would depose that the negligence was on the part of the driver of the ambassador car. It has to be remembered that PW1 has admitted in evidence that PW2 is the husband of his sister. But PW2 denies even that relationship. This shows that how he is more royal than the king. Admittedly PW2 is residing 10 kms. west of the place of incident. He has not been interrogated by the police. Being a relative he would have been the first person to be interrogated by the police. Further PW2 deposed that all the persons who had assembled for house warming ceremony including the driver of the ambassador car were totally intoxicated. The Tribunal found that his evidence cannot be believed. The scene mahazar would show that the place of accident is 8.25 metres west of the eastern tar end or MACA 578/2004 -:3:- in other words the accident had taken place on the eastern side of the road . The Tribunal has given cogent and convincing reasons for not accepting the evidence and also relied on the document produced by the claimant to hold that the negligence is not proved in this case. I do not find that there is any ground existing to come to a different conclusion especially when the trial court has the opportunity to see the demeanour of the witness and appreciate in the correct perspective. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-