IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1146 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.744/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: ----------------------- V.U. VARGHESE, S/O. UTHUPPU, AGED 45, CHRIST ALIVE, CHATTUPARA, MACHIPLAVU P.O., ADIMALY. BY ADV. SRI.N.ANILKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. ANIL A.K., S/O. SURENDRAN, AGED 30, ASARIKUDIYIL HOUSE, ANAVIRATTY P.O., ADIMALY. 2. N.C. SASI, NEELAMVELIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO.11/77B, ANAVIRATTY P.O., ADIMALY. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ELENJICKAL PLAZA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 4. JACKSON A.G., S/O. GEORGE, ARACKAL HOUSE, MACHIPLAVU P.O., ADIMALY. 5. JOSE V.K., S/O. KURIAKOSE, VADAKKAN HOUSE, ALAPPARA P.O., KANJIKKUZHY, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1146 OF 2006 --------------------------------- Dated this the 18th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.744/2002. The claimant, a passenger in an autorickshaw, met with an accident. It is alleged that a jeep collided with the autorickshaw. The accident took place on 24.1.2002. It is the specific case of the claimant that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the driver of the jeep. The Insurance Company of the Jeep denied the accident and involvement of the jeep. The Tribunal after consideration of the materials dismissed the claim petition for want of evidence. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides. The Tribunal found that there was inordinate delay in filing a complaint with respect to this accident. The alleged accident took place on 24.1.2002 and a private complaint was filed only in the month of March which was registered on 18.3.2002 on the basis of an order under Section 156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Tribunal also noted the scene of occurrence and further held that the M.A.C.A. 1146/2006 2 autorickshaw had gone to the wrong side and collided with the jeep. It is further held that when he was admitted in hospital on 24.1.2002, there was no mention about the involvement of a jeep in the accident. But the history of the accident was given as autorickshaw accident occurred at Koombanpara. So on an analysis of the entire materials, the tribunal came to the conclusion that all is not well with the case and therefore dismissed the case. It is also found that the jeep did not have a valid policy on the date of the accident and the insurer of the autorickshaw has not been impleaded. There is no allegation that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the autorickshaw driver. So one cannot find fault with the Tribunal for arriving at a decision. The claimant has not succeeded in proving this case to the satisfaction of the court and the tribunal has rightly dismissed the case. Therefore the M.A.C.A lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm