IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2008 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1731 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.767/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ ANUSURYA K. ACHUTHAN, AGED 23 YEARS, VALAVANKUNNU HOUSE, ATHANI P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.E.C.POULOSE SMT.BOBBY RAPHAEL.C RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.U.THOMAS, S/O URUMESE, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, AZHAKAM P.O., MOOKKANNOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. ADV. DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM FOR R1 SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1731 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 1st day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV) No. 767/1998. The claimant, a 14 year old girl, sustained injuries in a road accident while she was walking along Angamally-Aluva road. It is the case that a motorcycle ridden by the first respondent had hit on her resulting in injuries to her. The accident had taken place on 28.9.1994. It is her own case that she was taken to a hospital called K.G. Hospital where some tablets were given and thereafter she was sent home. On the next day she was admitted before the E.S.I. Hospital and it was revealed that she had sustained fracture on the leg. The law was set into motion by registering F.I.R on 4.10.94. Thereafter as usual, a scene mahazar, AMVI report, charge sheet etc. had been filed. The tribunal found that the hospital records never revealed that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road accident. Even it is taken into account that in the first hospital the claimant was taken by the rider of the bike, there is no case that she was taken to the E.S.I hospital by the rider but M.A.C.A.No. 1731 OF 2007 -2- she was taken only by her parents. There is no indication of any road traffic accident in the wound certificate issued by the E.S.I. Hospital. The doctor of the E.S.I. hospital was examined as RW1 and he had categorically stated that the documents in that hospital never would reveal that the cause of injury was a road traffic accident. This doctor has no enmity towards claimant or the members of his family. Therefore the primary documents namely the wound certificate and the hospital records does not reveal that the injury sustained by the claimant is in a road traffic accident. Subsequently the law was set in motion after a week by filing a statement before the police and as usual a charge sheet was prepared. It is a settled principle that the records prepared by the police is not conclusive unless it is accompanied by some piece of material evidence. Here from 20.8.94 till 4.10.94 there is not even a scrap of paper to show that the claimant's injury was on account of a road traffic accident. The subsequent filing of F.I.R will not improve the case when it is not properly connected. The tribunal had the opportunity to analyse evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 as well as RW1 and it was convinced that the materials produced are not sufficient to connect the injury with an accident. The tribunal also M.A.C.A.No. 1731 OF 2007 -3- found that PW2 is a close friend of the father of the injured and therefore necessarily he is only an interested witness. I am concious of the fact that interested witness are not witnesses to be totally disbelieved. Unless there are materials to connect the case, one cannot rely upon the same. The materials available do not satisfy my conscience too regarding an accident. Therefore I do not find mistake in the decision rendered by the tribunal and so the appeal lacks merit and accordingly dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm