IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI FRIDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2011 / 8TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 170 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.757/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- C.A.MOHANAN, S/O.AMBU, AGED 44 YEARS, CHOYAMADAM HOUSE, CHEEKKAD, MANAKKADAVU P.O., TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT, SRI.K.N.ABHILASH, SMT.R.LEELA, SMT.N.K.SHEEBA. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SAJI, S/O.KUNHAMBU, PUTHUSSERIYIL HOUSE, KARTHIKAPURAM, P.O.KARTHIKAPURAM, TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR -670 572. 2. T.D.SEBASTIAN, MEPRAKAVIL HOUSE, MANAKKADAVU P.O., ALAKODE- 670 571. 3. THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., P.B.NO.29, TEMPLE ROAD,SOUTH BAZAR, PAYYANNUR-670 307. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/09/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No. 170 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 30th day of September 2011 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J Claimant is the appellant. He claimed compensation for the personal injuries suffered by him in a motor accident which took place on 07/06/2003. According to him, he was a pedestrian who was walking along the road. At that time, a goods vehicle driven by the 1st respondent owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent hit against him. He suffered injuries. According to him, the accident had taken place solely on account of the rashness and negligence of the driver of the vehicle. He, therefore, claimed compensation from the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle. 2. The driver and the owner entered appearance. They filed a joint written statement disputing the assertion that an accident had taken place. According to them, no such accident had at all taken place. It was their contention that the appellant had suffered injuries when a wooden log fell on him. They totally denied the allegations raised about the appellant sustaining injuries in a motor accident involving their vehicle. The 3rd M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 2 respondent/insurance company also denied the accident. Thereupon parties went to trial. On the side of the appellant, Exts. A1 to A3 were marked. Driving licence particulars of the driver of the vehicle was produced as Ext.B1. This was evidently produced in the light of the contentions of the insurance company that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence at the time of the accident. Ext.B2 copy of the policy of insurance was also produced and marked. 3. The learned tribunal took note of all the relevant inputs. That the appellant had suffered injuries and that he had undergone treatment is not seen seriously disputed. The cause of the injury suffered by him was the real bone of contention. According to the appellant, he had suffered injuries in a motor accident; but, according to respondents 1 to 3, he had not suffered injuries in any accident in which the insured vehicle was involved. The tribunal was required to choose between these rival versions. Except Exts.A1 to A3, no other documents were produced. Ext.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R which shows that a crime was registered long after the date of the accident. The accident was on 07/06/2003 and the F.I.R was registered on 18/10/2003. The F.I.R is registered on the basis of a private M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 3 complaint filed by the appellant before the criminal court and referred by the learned Magistrate to the police under Section under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The learned counsel argues that in the complaint allegation was raised that false information was furnished to the medical officer by the driver of the vehicle who had taken the appellant to the hospital. Nothing is produced to support this allegation. Even the copy of the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate is not produced. The learned counsel argues that Ext.A1 can be reckoned as a valid and clinching piece of evidence. Less said about this contention the better. Evidently, the complaint filed long after the accident by the appellant advancing a particular version about the manner in which he sustained injuries cannot be reckoned as valid evidence. The mere lodging of such a convenient complaint about four months after the accident cannot, at any rate, help the court to choose between the rival versions. 4. The only other piece of evidence throwing light on the cause of the injuries is Ext.A2. That is a treatment certificate. As rightly noted by the tribunal, no explanation is offered as to why the wound certificate is not produced. The learned counsel at the Bar offers the explanation that as no medico legal case M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 4 was revealed as per the allegations made to the doctor at the initial stage, no wound certificate was prepared by the medical officer. Be that as it may, Ext.A2 shows that the injuries were sustained when a log of wood fell on the right leg of the appellant. What we intend to note is that even Ext.A2 cannot, in any way, help the court to choose between the rival versions. 5. The allegation is raised by the appellant that he suffered injuries in a motor accident. He has proved that he has suffered injuries; but absolutely no material is placed before court to accept the version of the appellant that he had suffered injuries in a motor accident. Ext.A1 F.I.R registered belatedly on the basis of a private complaint filed by him before the learned Magistrate cannot certainly help the Court to choose between the rival versions. The available indications convincingly suggest that the appellant has not proved his version that he suffered injuries in a motor vehicle accident. We are surprised to note that the appellant had not examined himself. We fail to understand how in a case like this the appellant can afford not to examine himself as a witness. We must say that sitting in this jurisdiction we are perturbed by the very inferior quality of assistance that is offered to the tribunals by the parties/counsel. M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 5 The claim is under Section 166 of the M.V.Act. The burden certainly is on the claimant to establish that he has suffered injuries in a motor accident. In spite of the vehement contention raised by respondents 1 to 3 disputing the accident the appellant wanted the tribunal to decide the seriously disputed question of fact solely with the assistance of Ext.A1. The assertions in Ext.A1 are not attempted to be proved at all. 6. We have no hesitation to agree that the tribunal was eminently correct in choosing not to accept and act upon the self-serving version of the appellant advanced in the claim petition and the complaint filed before the learned Magistrate on the basis of which Ext.A1 F.I.R was registered. Sitting as an appellate court, we find absolutely no reason to interfere with the impugned award. 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 6 M.A.C.A.No.170 of 2011 7 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010