IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 13TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 22ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2002 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.558/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN NAIR, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MOLATHUTHAZHATH PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, ERAMALLOOR KARA, ERAMALLOOR VILLAGE, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAKUMARAN NAIR P.P., PLAKKOTTU HOUSE, KAKKATTOOR, ENANALLOOR, ENANALLOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ELENJICAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R.2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2002 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 13th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.558 of 2002. The claimant, a police officer sustained injuries in a road accident and the claim application has been dismissed by the court below. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard both sides. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a bike ridden by the first respondent and when it reached the place of accident a pedestrian suddenly crossed the road and in order to avoid a hit, the rider applied sudden break as a result of which the vehicle capsized and resulted in injuries to the claimant. Immediately after the accident, he was taken to the hospital by the first respondent. It was stated before the hospital authorities that the accident is on account of a collision between the two known scooters on 30.1.2002. When such a matter is put to the witness he would depose that he was unconscious and therefore he did not know about it. But the document MACA 2002/2006 -:2:- Ext.A4 shows that he was conscious at the time when he was admitted in the hospital and therefore the Tribunal found that all is not well with the case. He did not have any serious injuries so as to become unconscious. The Tribunal also found that PW2, who according to PW1 is an eye witness, is a tempo driver by profession and his evidence was also not accepted by the Tribunal for more than one reason. The Tribunal found that he was seated in the court hall listening to the examination of PW1 and that he has come to the court along with the petitioner and that he was not summoned before court. The Tribunal also found that no attempt was made by the petitioner to disprove the contents of Ext.A4 which is the history of the accident. Therefore it relied on the entries in Ext.A4 which is produced by the claimant himself and held that the case is not genuine and therefore dismissed the application. I do not find any reason to interfere with such a decision and therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-