IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 18TH DECEMBER 2009 / 27TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2037 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1298/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., II FLOOR, EAST FORT COMPLEX, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. VASU, S/O.RAVUNNI, AGED 54 YEARS, KANHIKUNNATH HOUSE, KUNDALASSERI POST, KERALASSERI VIA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. VEERANKUTTY, S/O.VAPPU, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, PATHAPALLA HOUSE, KERALASSERI POST, PALAKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA.NO.2366/2009 IN MACA.NO.2037/2009 DISMISSED 18.12.2009. SD/= M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE,. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2037 OF 2009 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of December 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(MV)No.1298 of 2005. The claimant, a 54 year old man sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.33,900/-.The insurance company has challenged the award in appeal on the ground that the reason for sustainment of injury is not a road accident and therefore the claim petition has to be dismissed. It appears from the materials available that the claimant is not a properly fit person and that is why he is represented by his wife. It is true, that to start with, it is recorded that he had sustained injuries on account of a fall after consuming alcohol. He was treated in the District Hospital at Palakkad and from there he was referred to the Medical College hospital with the noting medico legal case. If it is only a fall after consumption of alcohol, it will amount to a medico legal case at all. Secondly, it has to be stated that immediately on 9.2.2002 an FIR is registered and thereafter a case was also proceeded with. The police, after MACA 2037/2009 -:2:- due investigation also has filed a charge sheet and therefore the result of the investigation is regarding an accident. It is also to be stated that the claimant has chosen to examine PW3 as an independent witness. PW3 had deposed before court that he had seen the accident and the driver after hitting did not stop the vehicle but he was acquainted with the driver previously. So the factum of the reference of the case as a medico legal case and the registration of a case as a road traffic accident on the very next day and the culmination of the investigation which led to filing of the charge sheet coupled with the evidence of PW3 would probabilise the case of the claimant regarding an accidental injury. Just because an endorsement is made, that too, in relation to a man who is not of a very sound mind at the time of admission as 'fall due to alcohol' need not be taken as a conclusive proof in this case. Further, the driver of the vehicle has not chosen to come before court nor the insurance company has examined him to prove the other contentions. Therefore, in the backdrop of the other discussions, the preponderance of probability lies more with a road traffic accident rather than fall after consumption of alcohol. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision rendered by the court below. Therefore the appeal fails MACA 2037/2009 -:3:- and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-