IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1221 of 2006(A) ------------------------------------ OPMV.2189/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : -------------------------------------- SHAIJU, S/O. AUGUSTHY, AGED 36 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA KARA, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE,ALUVA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------------- 1. AUGUSTHY, S/O. CHAKKU, VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA P.O., MANJAPRA. 2. SHAJI, S/O. AUGUSTHY, VADAKKUMCHERY HOUSE, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, AYYAMPUZHA KARA. 3. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1221 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 2189/94. It was an application for compensation filed by the claimant alleging that he sustained serious injurious in a jeep accident, which was driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition. Originally the claim was allowed and in appeal the matter was remitted back to the Tribunal for examination of the Doctors who had issued the wound certificate in order to find out what has been stated therein with respect to the nature of the accident. After remand, two Doctors namely Anandam Radhakrishnan and Sajan P. Augustine were examined. The material documents were Ext.A5 wound certificate and Ext.X1(b) an intimation to the police regarding the accident. In Ext.A5 is the medical certificate wherein the history and alleged cause of injury was stated as “while driving a jeep it overturned around 5 p.m. on 4.1.94 at Ayyampuzha.” Ext.X1(b) is the intimation given on the basis of this wound certificate to the Police. RW2 is the Doctor who has recorded the statement in the wound certificate. He had deposed that the injured was taken to the hospital by his father. It is stated before me that “while driving the jeep it overturned at a bend about 5 p.m. on 4.1.94 at MACA No.1221/06 2 Ayyampuzha.” He also deposed that the police intimation was given by Dr. Anandam Radhakrishnan. While he was cross-examined he would depose that at that time he was in the causality department and it was the bystander who has given the information. Nothing has been brought out to show that this Doctor had any enmity or bias against the injured in the accident. Similarly the evidence of RW2 also would indicate that on the basis of the wound certificate the intimation has been given to the police. So Ext.A5 and Ext.X1(b) would certainly militate against the claim of the appellant. It is true that the police after due investigation has filed a charge sheet against the 2nd respondent, who has pleaded guilty, and therefore it is contended that the case of the Insurance Company is not correct. These things are happening only at a subsequent stage and even the first information statement is only given on the next day. So the first piece of material supplied immediately after the accident and that too also has been given by the father of the claimant. Tribunal has considered the matter and also looked into the preponderance of probabilities and further found fault with the police for not making any enquiry as to the statement in Ext.A5 and Ext.X1(b). The Tribunal also found that the nature of injury sustained are very serious in nature and no other persons had suffered any injury, which may also indicate that the vehicle was driven by the claimant himself. The Tribunal also held that if the 2nd respondent was the driver of the jeep he would have also sustained injuries. But in the absence of the same it MACA No.1221/06 3 has to be held that what is projected by the claimant is not correct. The court ultimately found that while driving the jeep it hit on a kayyala and overturned is found to be correct and the first information statement was later given to create a story so as to develop a case. I agree with the Tribunal that importance has to be given to the entries in Ext.A5 and Ext.X1 (b) and it is not tainted with any motive or illegality. 2. Therefore, I concur with the finding of the Tribunal. Further it has to be stated that the Tribunal had the opportunity to see the witnesses, their demenour and appreciate the same which also should not be lightly brushed aside by the appellate court. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. I make it clear that if any amount is withdrawn by the claimant in the case, he is bound to reimburse it and in case of non imbursement, the Insurance Company can execute for realisation of the same by putting this award for execution. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1221/06 4