IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 365 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.946/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KODUNGALLUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. SHANAVAS, S/O.PAREETH, PALATHINKAL HOUSE, VALLUVALLY KARA, KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE. 2. KUTTAN, S/O.BASKARAN, PARAYATH HOUSE, VALLUVALLY KARA, KOONAMMAVU P.O., KOTTUVALLY VILLAGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.521/2010 IN MACA NO.365/2010 DISMISSED 22/02/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 365 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)946/05. The claimant, alleged to be a pillion rider in a motorbike ridden by the first respondent sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.45,200/-. Dissatisfied with the same the insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the award. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that as per the endorsement in the wound certificate it appears that the fall is from his own bike thereby it is a self-accident which will not entitle him to get any compensation etc. I may like to state that when it is pleaded there is a duty cast upon the party to prove it also. Basing upon the same wound certificate the Investigating Agency proceeded with the matter and filed a final charge sheet against the first respondent and thus a crime has been M.A.C.A. 365 OF 2010 -:2:- registered against the first respondent. It is seen from that award that PW1 has been examined and he had stated about the accident. Fraud and collusion are not matters which can be decided on the basis of conjectures and surmises and it requires evidence. The insurance company has not produced any thing or adduced any satisfactory evidence to establish regarding the said act of fraud and collusion. When it is so I do not find any ground to entertain this appeal and therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-