IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 30 of 2010(A) --------------------- OPMV.1006/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT: CLAIMANT -------------- T.ABDUL AZEEZ, S/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 48, SYAM MANZIL, POST G.A., COLLEGE, NR.MATHRA BUS STOP, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. P.GANESAN, S/O.N.CHOYI, VAPPANOTH HOUSE, PILASSERY POST, KUNNAMANGALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASURANCE CO. LTD, DIVISONAL OFFICE, 11ND FLOOR, V.K.BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. His claim for compensation for the loss suffered by him on account of injuries suffered in a motor accident was dismissed by the Tribunal. According to the appellant/claimant, the accident took place on 04.02.2002. An F.I.R, Ext.A1, was lodged long later on 11.02.2002. Injuries were suffered by him. According to the appellant, he was riding his motorcycle and on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent, it was involved in an accident. The 1st respondent was driving a mini lorry. The said lorry was validly insured with the 2nd respondent. 2. The claimant examined himself as PW1. Exts.A1 to A6 were marked. Exts.B1 and B2 were also marked. 3. The Tribunal entertained serious doubts on the truth of the claim. In these circumstances, though the respondents did not seriously assist the Tribunal, the Tribunal meticulously looked into the documents and came to the conclusion that the claim is not justified. M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 2 4. Many circumstances appear to have weighed with the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the claim is not honest, bona fide and justifiable. 5. The accident took place on 04.02.2002. The appellant was immediately taken to the hospital by his brother in law. In the wound certificate-Ext.A5, the alleged cause is stated as a fall from a motorcycle on 04.02.2002. Later in Ext.A4 discharge summary, the alleged cause is recorded as “admitted following fall from his own bike into a gutter”. It is true that the 1st respondent/owner of the vehicle, against whom, the claim was lodged and the 2nd respondent insurer, had not seriously disputed the liability. But the Tribunal took note of the delay of 7 days in lodging the F.I statement, the nature of the alleged cause narrated in the wound certificate and also the record made in the discharge summary that the appellant/injured was admitted following fall from his own motor bike into a gutter. In the light of the compelling possibility which emerged from these circumstances the Tribunal did not accept and act upon Ext.A6/B1 final report submitted by the police against the driver of the mini lorry. The Tribunal did not also accept and act upon the oral evidence of PW1, the injured, who tendered evidence in M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 3 support of his assertion that the accident was suffered in a motor accident involving the mini lorry belonging to the 1st respondent and insured with the 2nd respondent. The learned Judge of the Tribunal alertly took note of the fact that though the final report has been filed, the appellant had not chosen to produce the vehicle documents relating to the mini lorry to even remotely suggest that the same was involved in a motor accident. 6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant in detail. We have gone through the impugned award. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal, even in the absence of specific contentions, had alertly applied its mind to the totality of circumstances and had come to the conclusion quite satisfactorily that the claim of the appellant has not been proved. We find no merit in the attempt to assail the impugned award. It would be too puerile for any Tribunal to blindly and meekly accept the final report filed by the police or the oral assertions made by the claimant when the totality of circumstances does inspire genuine and legitimate dissatisfaction in the mind of the Tribunal as in the instant case. We are not satisfied that the challenge deserves to be upheld. M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 4 7. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/- M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 5 R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------ C.MAppl.No.19 of 2010 in M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010 ORDER BASANT, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 279 days in filing a M.A.C.Appeal. Notice has not been issued to the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. We are proceeding to dispose of the appeal straightaway. In these circumstances, we are satisfied that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned without waiting for issue and return of notice to the respondents. M.A.C.A No.30 of 2010 6 2. Petition allowed. Delay condoned. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-