IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2009 / 18TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1644 of 2006 ------------------------------- OP(MV) No.1047/1998 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P M C X 11/349, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, REPRESENTED BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.M.S.PATTALI SRI.K.J.KURIACHAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. POULOSE, S/O.PATHROSE, CHULLY HOUSE, AMALAPURAM KARA, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. SASIKUMAR P.V., S/O.P.S.VIDHYADHARA, PARATHAN HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR, KALADY. 3. VILSON, S/O.THOMAS, OORAKKAN HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR KARA, MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1644 of 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated, this the 8th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV) No.1047 of 1998. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding on a bicycle, a mini lorry bearing registration No.KL-7J-2799 driven by the second respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on him resulting injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 entered appearance and denied the whole incident. They had raised a contention that while the mini lorry was proceeding some people stopped the mini lorry and wanted to take the claimant to his cycle shop and when they reached the cycle shop they requested him to be taken to the hospital and thereby the claimant had been taken to the hospital and it was not on account of the injuries or hit by the said mini lorry. It is also contended that in the Malayala Manorama daily dated 13.10.1996 there has been a publication that “Paropakaram Vinayayi”. The third respondent has also reiterated the same contentions. 2. As respondents 1 and 2 abandoned their contentions, the third respondent was permitted to proceed under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Tribunal on consideration of the materials found in favour of the claimant and awarded a compensation of Rs.12800/-. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. M.A.C.A.No.1644 of 2006 2 3. Heard learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 4. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding on a bicycle a mini lorry hit on him resulting injuries. The contention of the respondents is that no such incident had taken place, but what really transpired was that he was helped to be moved from the place of the incident and the said mini lorry had not dashed on the bicycle resulting injuries to him. The trial court considered the evidence of P.W.1. There was a delay of one and a half months in registering the case. It is explained by the claimant to the effect that he was under the impression that the police has registered a crime. But it is also his case that he was taken to the clinic of Dr.C.K.Antu and was given first aid. Thereafter he was taken to the Little Flower Hospital, Angamaly and he was an in-patient for four days and he could not do any work for a period of three months. The presence of the vehicle at the place of the accident is an admitted fact. But, their case is that they were attempting to give lift to an injured person and that injury was not on account of the said vehicle. Except for the averments, there is no evidence tendered at all by those persons in support of that contention. P.W.1 was examined and he had deposed in line with his contention in the petition. The law was set in motion by filing a private complaint and the police has filed a charge sheet against the driver of the mini lorry. A wound certificate had been prepared M.A.C.A.No.1644 of 2006 3 on 19.7.1996. Ext.A6 is the certificate issued by Dr.C.K.Antu stating that he was brought to his clinic on 14.7.1996 following a road traffic accident. So there is only one sided evidence, that is of the claimant, both supported by oral as well as documentary. Except for the mere averment in the written statement no evidence at all is adduced by the respondents in support of their contention. The plea of fraud cannot be inferred from conjectures and surmises. There must be some material. It is totally absent. Therefore, the Tribunal accepting the evidence of P.W.1 as well as Exts.A1 to A3, held in favour of the claimant and awarded a compensation of Rs.12800/-. I find no mistake committed by the Tribunal and, therefore, the appeal lacks merits and it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vns