IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH AUGUST 2008 / 15TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 500 of 2007(D) ----------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.965/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI - 18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------- GEORGE, S/O.E.P.JOSE, ELUVATHINGAL HOUSE, NEHRU NAGAR, KURIACHIRA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH, ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.500 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 6th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.965 of 2001. The claimant a teacher by profession, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.48,900/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. It is alleged in the appeal memorandum that the claimant had not sustained injuries in a road accident and further it is contended that there are violations of the policy conditions. It is true that no case has been registered by the police. That by itself will not be a conclusive proof that the accident had not taken place. Respondents 1 and 2 who contested the case had only disputed about the factum of negligence whereas the insurance company has challenged the very accident. There is no contention for the insurance company that the owner and the driver have colluded with the claimant in this case. The claimant was treated in a well established hospital, viz., MACA 500/2007 -:2:- Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur and the hospital authorities had issued a certificate to the effect that he had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident. Ext.A1(a) also indicates about the factum of accident. The claimant is a teacher working with Prof. P.C.Thomas, who runs an institute for special training to the students for technical studies. PW1 mounted the box and gave evidence to the fact that the claimant was involved in an accident and it was on account of the accident, he had sustained injuries. The Tribunal found that in spite of searching cross examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit the evidence of PW1. Or, in other words, the Tribunal felt that the evidence of PW1 is intrinsically reliable and inherently probable. A civil case can be decided on the preponderance of probabilities. There is only one sided evidence adduced by the claimant coupled with Exts.A1 and A1(a). The insurance company has raised a contention that such an accident has not taken place but did not adduce any evidence to that effect. A mere contention may not be a substitute for proof. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal in arriving at a decision regarding the accident. 3.The next question is regarding the liability of the insurance company. The insurance company would contend that the driver of the jeep did not have a valid badge. Though it filed an application calling upon the MACA 500/2007 -:3:- driver to produce the badge and it was allowed by the court, the insurance company did not take any steps to summon him for that purpose. So, the said application happened to be dismissed for default on account of the action of the insurance company. When the insurance company is claiming exoneration of liability on account of the breach of policy conditions, the burden is squarely on them to prove that there was breach of policy conditions. Here, there is no such evidence adduced. So, on that basis also, the Tribunal cannot be found fault with. From these discussion, I hold that the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-