IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH JULY 2008 / 27TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1178 of 2006(G) ----------------------- OP(MV) NO.1677/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER/APPELLANT: ----------------------- ANOOP, S/O.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT KUZHUMKOLIL VEETTIL, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------ 1. ABDUL KAREEM, S/O.ALI, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT VELLIRIPPIL HOUSE, PEZHAKKAPPILLY KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. P.P.KURIAN, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, VADAKKANCHERRY POST, PALAKKAD. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JACOB(SR) - R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R3 SRI.P.FAZIL - R1 SMT.JAYASREE MANOJ - R1 SRI.SREEJITH V.S. - R1 SRI.A.C.THOMAS ADHIKARAM - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1178 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) 1677/01. The claimant was a rider of a bike which was involved in the accident. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of him and therefore dismissed the application. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the counsel. I had perused the award and also the documents mentioned in the award. The two points on which the Tribunal came to the conclusion are that the police after due investigation has referred the case on the ground that it was the motorcyclist who applied the break and thereafter the vehicle had a skid and hit on the back side of the lorry. A person who was travelling as a pillion rider gave a statement before the police to this effect. The said M.A.C.A. 1178 OF 2006 -:2:- statement was recorded by a police constable and he had been examined. But nobody is examined to prove that he has not stated so. Unlike in criminal cases 161 statement can be used as evidence in civil cases. Further, when a question is put to PW1 that a bike had hit on the back side of the lorry he pretend ignorance. He also stated that the police had referred the case. Further, the person who conducted the investigation was also examined and he had submitted before the Tribunal that investigation reveal that the accident took place due to the skidding of the bike and hitting on the back side of the lorry. Therefore on those materials the Tribunal arrived at a right decision that the accident had taken place not on account of the negligence of the lorry driver. Therefore the appeal is not to be entertained. It lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-