IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 282 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.252/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): (PETITIONER IN OP MV 252/2005. ------------------------ SHALBY, AGED 33, S/O.RAPPEL, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, NEAR ISRO, CHUNANGUMVELI P.O., ALUVA-5. BY ADV. MR.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI RESPONDENT(S): (RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN OPMV 252/05). ------------------------------ 1. K.E.JOSE, S/O.ESHO, KUZHIKALAYIL HOUSE, ERUMATHALA, ALUVA 683 105. 2. REMESHAN, S/O.KALIMUTHU, RESMI NIVAS, BEHIND THE CHURCH, ASOKAPURAM, ALUVA EAST, PIN-683 101. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, PUTHUSSERY COMPLEX, GOVT. HOSPITAL JUNCTION, ALUVA - 683 101. R3 BY ADV. MR.K.SANDESH RAJA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.282 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV)No.252/2005. The claimant is alleged to have sustained an injury in a road accident while he was riding a motor cycle. It is his case that a bus came from the opposite direction and hit against the motor cycle resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal raised appropriate issues and arrived at a decision that the accident had taken place not on account of the bus driver and therefore dismissed the petition. It is against that decision, the appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The insurance company has sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicle Act to contest the claim. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that appreciation of materials by the trial court is not correct. He also prays for an opportunity for adducing evidence. 3. The claimant himself has produced a scene mahzer : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.282 OF 2009 as well as the charge sheet. It is true that the charge sheet is against the driver of the bus. But it is not the end of everything and everything has to depend upon the materials collected by the investigating officer. Ext.A3 is the scene mahazer. Motor cycle was proceeding from east to west and the bus was proceeding from west to east. The proper side of the motor cycle was northern side and that of the bus was southern side. The road at the place of accident is having a width of 7 meters. It is seen that the accident had taken place 1 meter north of the southern tar end which indicates that it is absolutely wrong side of the motor cycle. 4. I have also perused the AVM report of the bus and it also does not help the claimant for the reason that the damages noted on the bus are on the rear side. Further Ext.A3 is a document exhibited by the claimant himself and it may not be possible for this Court to hold that Ext.A3 cannot be relied upon. Further in this type of cases, the claimant should have at least mounted the box or examined somebody to prove negligence on the part of the bus driver. With the materials on record, I cannot find fault with the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.282 OF 2009 Tribunal having committed any error for the reason that the motor cycle was totally on the wrong side and the accident had taken place on account of the same. Therefore I do not find any materials to interfere with the decision of the trial court and therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.282 OF 2009