IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 17TH JULY 2008 / 26TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 351 of 2003(C) ---------------------- OP(MV).360/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- RAJAPPAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, KANDATHINKARA, MULAPPURAM KARA, NEYYASSERY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRASEKARA PILLAI, CHANDRALAYAM, OLAMATTOM, THODUPUZHA. 2. RAJU @ KURUVILA, S/O. PATHROSE, PUNNATHAR HOUSE, THOMMANKUTHU KARA, NEYYASSERY VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA. 4. GIGI, W/O. PRABHAKARAN, CHELLUPURAYIL HOUSE, KARIMANNOR, THODUPUZHA. BY ADVS. SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN FOR R3 SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS J.ANAKKALLUNKAL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 351 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)360/98. The claimant is a barber by profession and he is alleged to have sustained injuries in a motor bike accident. It is submitted that the bike ridden by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner hit on him resulting in various compound and comminuted fractures. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials held that the claimant has not succeeded in proving that he had sustained the injuries and therefore dismissed the claim application. 2. Heard the counsel for all sides and also perused the documents. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered on the strength of Ext.A2 private complaint which was referred to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Ext.A3 is a certificate issued by the Excelsior Hospital where there is a mention about a road traffic accident and hit by a bike. The police after due M.A.C.A. 351 OF 2003 -:2:- investigation filed a charge sheet also against the rider of the bike. But the Tribunal did not accept these documents nor believed the evidence of PW1 and arrived at a decision that the claimant has not succeeded in proving the accident as alleged by him. The Tribunal found that the claimant was not in a position even to say from which direction the bike came and hit him. It also opined that a leading question was put to the claimant with regard to the involvement of the vehicle mentioned. The Tribunal also referred to the version of PW1 that he has requested the Doctor not to make it a case. These types of evidence coupled with the long delay in filing a private complaint persuaded the Tribunal to hold that all is not well with case and therefore dismissed the case. If really a person is involved in a road traffic accident and if really he had gone to the hospital certainly he would have mentioned the cause of the accident. Similarly a wound certificate should have been prepared so also the medical records kept by the hospital would reveal these facts. Since Ext.A3 certificate issued by the hospital refers to a road M.A.C.A. 351 OF 2003 -:3:- traffic accident if it is really supported by original of the same it is a matter that has to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal. The ignorance or innocence of a witness alone shall not be a ground to throw out a claim on a technical ground. Therefore I feel that an opportunity can be given to the appellant to produce the original of the case records or the wound certificate to show what he had stated before the authorities or what he had stated before the Doctors regarding the cause of injury sustained. When additional materials are furnished and the Court finds it is reliable it may note in favour of the claimant but otherwise not. I do not want to further elaborate on this question because the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to all concerned to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence and if necessary by summoning the original of the documents itself. The Tribunal may also direct the parties to state what has happened to the criminal trial that was M.A.C.A. 351 OF 2003 -:4:- pending against the accused in that case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.8.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-