IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 2684 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OP(MV) .908/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ MOHANAN E.K., S/O.KESAVAN, ELAMPLACKAL HOUSE, CHERUPURAM BHAGOM, RAJAKKAD KARA, RAJAKKADU P.O., RAJAKKADU VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.DOMSON J.VATTAKUZHY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------- 1. SHALINKUMAR P.G., S/O.GOPI, PERIKILAKATTIL HOUSE, MANJAKUZHI, RAJAKUMARI.P.O., PIN- 685 619 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA.PIN- 686 661 3. BIBIN, S/O.GOPI, PERIKILAMKATTIL, MANJAKUZHI KARA, RAJAKUMARI VILLAGE.P.O., PIN- 685 619 BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts A.K.BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 2684 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~==~=~=~= Dated this the 17th day of January,2011 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.908 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. He filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident against respondents 1 to 3, the owner, insurer and driver of the offending vehicle. In this appeal he challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated October 15, 2010 dismissing the application on the ground that the claimant failed the prove that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the 3rd respondent. 2. The alleged accident occurred on November 16, 2004 at about 4.30 p.m. at Myladumpara. According to the claimant, while he was riding on a motor cycle bearing MACA 2684/2010 2 registration No.KL.6B/479 from Rajakkadu to Nedumkandom, a jeep bearing registration No.KL.9A/0001 driven by the 3rd respondent came from the opposite direction and hit on his right shoulder, as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries. Alleging negligence against the 3rd respondent, the claimant filed the O.P. before the Tribunal under section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.1 lakh. 3. Respondents 1 and 3, owner and driver of the offending jeep, though entered appearance did not file any written statement. The 2nd respondent, insurer of the offending jeep, filed a written statement admitting the policy but denied the allegation regarding the negligence of the 3rd respondent. The 2nd respondent contended that the driver of the jeep was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 4. Exts.A1 to A12 were marked on the side of the claimant and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. On an appreciation of the evidence, the MACA 2684/2010 3 Tribunal dismissed the application finding that there was no evidence to prove that any such accident happened or to show that the alleged accident occurred due to negligence of the 3rd respondent driver of the jeep. Aggrieved by the above finding, the claimant has come up in appeal. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the claimant and learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 6. Following points arise for consideration:- 1) Whether the finding of the Tribunal that the claimant has failed to prove negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle and consequently dismissing the O.P. can be sustained? 2) Whether the claimant is entitled to any compensation ? 7. The Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove involvement of the offending jeep in the accident and dismissed the O.P. We have called for the lower court records and perused the documents produced by the claimant and the 3rd respondent. We also feel that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the offending jeep in the accident or to show that there was MACA 2684/2010 4 negligence on the part of the driver of the offending jeep. In Ext.A3 copy of the wound certificate nothing has been mentioned about the involvement of the offending jeep in the accident. What is stated in Ext.A3 is that the accident occurred when the motor cycle overturned. Further there was considerable delay in registering the F.I.R. The claimant has also not chosen to come forward and speak about the incident. 8. Therefore, in our view, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the claimant has failed to prove the involvement of the offending jeep in the accident or to show that there was any negligence on the part of the 3rd respondent and dismissing the O.P. In the result, the appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn