IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 345 of 2003(C) ----------------------- OPMV.229/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. SARADHAMMA, AGED 59 YEARS, W/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR,VADAKKEMARAPPANKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUTTOOR P.O., KUTTOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. 2. RAJENDRAN NAIR, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-. 3. JAYASREE, AGED 32 YEARS, D/O. LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, -DO- -DO-. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY SRI.SABU I.KOSHY RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. K.M.PAUL, S/O. MATHEW, KARAMPURATHU HOUSE, NELLIKUZHY P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.JAMES KOSHY.N., SC. KSRTC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.345 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the order of the MACT dismissing a claim petition filed by the appellants claiming compensation for the death of husband of the first appellant who is the father of appellants 2 and 3. It is seen from the order of the MACT that the driver and KSRTC denied the accident, that inspite of denial of the accident by the driver involved in the bus and KSRTC, appellants have not chosen to adduce any independent evidence but relied on the Police Case against the driver. It is seen that the Police has registered a case based on intimation received from the Hospital about the admission of the diseased person with injuries. The specific case of the driver of the KSRTC bus is that when the bus reached the place where accident is stated to have occurred, the victim was surrounded by people and at the request of the people, the bus took him to hospital where he was pronounced dead. Probably the victim would have been knocked down by some unknown vehicle and the KSRTC bus which came later, took him to the hospital. This version does not stand controverted through any 2 independent evidence. In the circumstances, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal rightly rejected the claim and we uphold the same. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms