IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 170 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.847/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER; ------------------------------------- SUKUMARAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, AGED 45 YEARS, KARIYEZHUTH HOUSE, PO.PERINJANAM WEST, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.A.JALEEL SRI.T.T.MUHAMOOD RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.SATHYAN, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, KARIYAZHUTH HOUSE, P.O.PRINJANAM WEST, PERINJANAM VILLAGE, KODUNGALLUR TALUK. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO., BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, PERINCHERRY BUILDING, ROUND NORTH, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.SALIM - R1 SRI.A.C.DEVY - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.170 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.847 of 1997. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in a scooter to reach the Railway Station in order to catch a train to Madras, he fell down and sustained injuries as a pillion rider. According to him, his brother was driving the vehicle and it has taken place on account of his negligence. The insurance company has refuted the accident and the first respondent has chosen to remain ex parte. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials dismissed the petition and it is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 2. The point that arises for determination is whether there is anything to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that the court had not given due weight to the document Exts.A1 and A2 and therefore it has to be set aside. He had also made available before me for perusal the deposition of PWs.1 and 2. Pw1 is the claimant and PW2 is the alleged eye witness. Pw1 would depose MACA 170/2005 -:2:- that immediately after the accident he got into an auto rickshaw and proceeded to Madras. PW2 on the other hand would depose that he had seen the accident and had taken the claimant to the nearest Elite Hospital. If a person had really seen the accident he would not have deposed like that. The evidence of PW1 is scooter................................................................................................................ whereas PW2 would depose that PW1 ............................................................................................................ The versions of these witnesses are contradictory and the evidence of them cannot be taken as a source for accepting the claim. It is also a very strange conduct that immediately after the accident the person got into an auto rickshaw and proceeded to Madras. The first document regarding hospitalization is dated 2.10.1996 and the crime is registered in November, 1996. It has to be remembered that the rider of the bike is non other than the brother of the claimant. So all these things cumulatively make me feel that all is not well with the claim and the credibility cannot be attached to the witnesses and a mere registration of a crime that too after a month cannot be entertained. PW1 even would say that he has informed the police within 2 or 3 days after the accident. It is also not correct and therefore I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for rejecting the contention of the appellant MACA 170/2005 -:3:- and dismissing the case. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-