IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2009 / 9TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1585 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.732/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:- ------------------------------- OUSEPH @ UNNINEELAN, KOZHIMALAKUNNEL, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, PALA. BY ADV. MR. ABRAHAM MATHEW (VETTOOR) MR. P.I.GEORGEKUTTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:- ------------------------------------ 1. E.O.KUTTAPPAN, THARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHICOMBU PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., MARAGHATTU PALLY. 2. AJIT T.K., THARAYIL HOUSE, KOZHICOMBU PALAKKATTUMALA P.O., MARAGHATTU PALLY. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM. ADV. MS. SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== M.A.C.A. No. 1585 of 2004 ========================== Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT The appellant who was the applicant in O.P. (M.V) No. 732 of 1996 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, challenges the award dated 16.02.2004 passed by the M.A.C.T dismissing his application. 2. The case of the appellant can be summarised as follows:- On 14.01.1996, the appellant was walking along the northern side of the Thekkummuri-Andoor road. While so, a jeep bearing registration No. KLF 4624 belonging to the 2nd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and knocked down the appellant who was thrown off the road and who had sustained serious injuries. He was immediately taken to the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Pala. After first aid, he was referred to the Medical College M.A.C.A. No. 1585/2004 : 2 : Hospital, Kottayam. He had sustained compound supra condylar fracture of right femur and his right knee cap was torn and its inside was exposed. His right leg was put in plaster cast. Even after two months, the fractures did not unite properly. He was a skilled worker getting Rs.125/- per day. Hence the claim for Rs.2,07,500/- limited to Rs.75,000/-. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 disputed the accident as well as the involvement of the jeep belonging to the 2nd respondent. They contended that the case was a false case foisted against the respondents. 4. Before the Tribunal, the applicant was examined as PW1 and an independent witness was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A7 were got marked. On the side of the respondents, the 1st respondent Kuttappan was examined as RW1 and Exts. B1 and B2 were got marked. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was actually knocked down by M.A.C.A. No. 1585/2004 : 3 : the jeep belonging to the 2nd respondent herein and driven by the 1st respondent and that they were stating utter falsehood before the Tribunal below. 6. I cannot agree. It is true that the appellant lodged a complaint before the Kidangoor police which registered a case as crime No. 8 of 1996 against respondents 1 and 2 herein. After the investigation, the police referred the case as mistake of fact since the appellant was unable to identify either the vehicle or its driver. Aggrieved by the refer report, the appellant preferred a protest complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Ettumanoor which was tried as S.T. No. 1681 of 1997. After trial, the learned Magistrate acquitted both the respondents 1 and 2 herein holding that the appellant could not identify the vehicle or the driver. It was thereafter that the appellant preferred the claim before the M.A.C.T. Apart from himself, he examined PW2 as an eye witness to the occurrence. The Tribunal has observed that PW2 was not a witness M.A.C.A. No. 1585/2004 : 4 : examined before the Magistrate in S.T. No. 1681 of 1997. When both the police as well as the criminal court had found that the appellant had not adduced any satisfactory evidence to show that the 2nd respondent drove the jeep in question or that the jeep in question was owned by the 1st respondent or further that the jeep bearing registration No. KLF 4624 was the jeep involved in the occurrence, no liability could be saddled on respondents 1 and 2. Consequently, the 3rd respondent insurer also had no liability to indemnify the insured for an accident in which the vehicle belonging to the 1st respondent was not involved. Such being the evidence before the Tribunal, I see no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Tribunal below. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. Dated this the 30th day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv M.A.C.A. No. 1585/2004 : 5 :