IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MFA.No. 1406 of 1997() ------------------------------- OPMV.19/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- SUDHEESH, S/O. PARAMU, MANIYAN PARAMBU HOUSE, VADAMA.P.O., VADAMA VILLAGE, MALA KARA, MUKUNDAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.SHYAM SRI.S.SHYAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS S/O. KUNJU VAREED, PAZHAYATTIL, VADAMA VILLAGE, VADAMA.P.O., MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, 2. JOSEPH, S/O. THOMMANKUTTY, CHIRAYATH HOUSE, KADAPOOKARAYIL, VADAMA VILLAGE, MALA KARA - DELEATED FROM PARTY ARRAY AS PER ORDER IN C.M.P. NO. 7254 OF 2002 DATED 17.11.2003. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KODUNGALLOOR BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB R3 (SR.) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A.NO. 1406 OF 1997 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in OP(MV)19/92. It is the case of the claimant that while he was standing on the road behind a mini lorry after loading cow dung in the mini lorry the driver of the lorry negligently took the vehicle backwards, hit on the petitioner resulting in injuries to him. It is submitted that after the accident he was admitted in St.Vincent Dee Paul Hospital, Kuzhuppilly from where he was transferred to the Medical Trust Hospital for treatment where he underwent treatment for 27 days. The 3rd respondent had denied all the allegations and challenged the very accident itself. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials held that the case is not true and therefore dismissed the same. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. MFA 1406 of 1997 -2- 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the facts and circumstances would indicate about the genuineness of the claim and the Tribunal has erroneously arrived at a decision. The Tribunal had given its own reasons for not believing the case of the applicant before it. The accident took place on 29.7.91 and the law was set in motion by filing a private complaint on 17.9.91. It was on the basis of a reference u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. a FIR was registered. There is no document produced from the first hospital where he was admitted and a wound certificate issued by the Medical Trust Hospital is marked as Ext.A4. In Ext.A4 the cause of injury is stated as “.................................................................... ................................................................................... The learned Tribunal had also referred to the answer of the claimant in the cross-examination that he had narrated the cause of injury to the doctor of the Medical Trust Hospital. So there is an admission by the claimant regarding his statement made to the doctor of the Medical Trust Hospital which conclusively indicates that it is not an injury sustained in a MFA 1406 of 1997 -3- road traffic accident. The learned counsel would contend the nature of injuries sustained would show that it was not a fall as stated in the wound certificate. It has to be remembered that when a person sustained injuries in a road accident, one can imagine that there will be difficulty for him to move about, admittedly this person would have been looked after by somebody and if really he has been injured in a road traffic accident somebody should have brought it to the notice of the doctors or the authorities concerned or at least filed a complaint before a police intimating about the nature of injuries and the cause of injury sustained etc. A criminal case initiated after a long time especially when the recitals in the wound certificate is in contradiction to the same, are all matters which creates a suspicion in the mind of the authorities who deal with the case. The Tribunal had the opportunity to see the witness and watch his demenour and therefore it is not correct to interfere with such a fact finding rendered by the Tribunal. What type of injuries will be sustained when one falls on account of a hit are all matters MFA 1406 of 1997 -4- that depends upon the force in which one hits on that body or falls after he hit on the body and one cannot precisely determine that such and such injuries alone can be caused by such a fall and such and such injuries will be caused on a hit by a vehicle. They are only mere conjectures which cannot form a solid base for a decision in a case. From these discussions I do not find any material irregularity of perversity committed by the Court below in arriving at a decision that all is not well with the case and it lacks evidence so far as the accident is concerned I confirm the said finding and dismiss the appeal without costs. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- MFA 1406 of 1997 -5- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. No. 1406 OF 1997 = = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T 27th November, 2008.