IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 257 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.86/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ SAJEEVAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KURINJIPURAYIDATHIL, DESIYA BHAGOM, KUNCHITHANNY KARA, PALLIVASAL VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.C.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.K.A.ABDUL SALAM RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. K.S. SEBASTIAN, KADAVIL HOUSE, ATHIRAMPUZHA P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, ASHA BHAVAN, MANAKKARI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE NO.2, TRIO CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM-4. ADV. SRI.M.J.THOMAS FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 257 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.86/2004. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding a bike a Tempo Trax bearing Reg. No. KL-5B/5441 came and hit on the bike resulting injuries to him. The Insurance Company would contend that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the petitioner and that the case is a cooked up story. In the Trial Court PW1 was examined and Exts. A1 to A5 were marked. The documents relating to the accident are Exts. A1 to A4. Immediately after the accident he was taken to a hospital. It was reported that the cause of accident is on account of a fall from a motorcycle. It is the first time a report is made by a responsible person where the involvement of a Tempo trax is never mentioned. First Information Statement also is given with a delay of 5 days. Even according to PW1 it was the driver of the Tempo trax and one Mohanan who had helped him to get up after the accident. But neither the said Mohanan or that tempo driver had come to the scene thereafter. M.A.C.A.No. 257 OF 2007 -2- Even at this stage, Mohanan is not examined. The Tribunal felt that there is some fraud played and it did not accept the evidence of PW1 and rejected the case. I too feel that the approach of the Tribunal is totally correct, because a man will also have a tendency to speak the truth at the first instance. That was precisely done by PW1 and his associates. The delay of 5 days in lodging the complaint itself speaks about the time taken for making a case. I do not want to interfere the decision referred by the Tribunal. The M.A.C.A. lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm