IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 3119 of 2009(G) ------------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.383/1999 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- MUHAMMED SALIH M.P, S/O. ABDULLAKUTTY, AGED 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAKIDEERIYIL HOUSE, P.O.CHENAKKALANGADI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADVS. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN, SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. E.T.AHMMED KOYA HAJI, AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT EDATHODUKAYIL HOUSE, P.O.KODUVALLYM KOZHIKODE. (OWNER OF PICK UP VAN NO.KL-11/D-1678). 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THRIPURI BUILDING, EAST NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. (INSURER OF PICK UP VAN NO.KL-11/D-1678). R2 BY ADV. SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 3119 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) 383/99. The claimant, a rider of a motorbike, sustained injuries in a road accident when it is alleged to have collied with a pick up van. The petition is filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act. Time and again I find from this Tribunal that the persons in charge of the litigation are not producing any relevant documents for the purpose of the case. When a case is filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act being a tortious liability there is a responsibility cast upon the claimant to prove that the accident had occurred on account of the negligence of the person against whom negligence is alleged. What is produced before the Tribunal is only an attested copy of an F.I.R. by the lawyer. Absolutely there is no charge or scene M.A.C.A. 3119 OF 2009 -:2:- mahazar and further to crown all no evidence is adduced to prove that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the pick up van driver. Mere pleading in the petition is not a substitute for proof and there is a responsibility to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the negligence. It appears to be deliberate negligence and it need not have to be pardoned and a chance be given. Therefore I refrain from entertaining the appeal and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-