IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2008 / 19TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1268 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.269/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- THANKACHAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT THACHIRUPARAMBIL HOUSE, RAKKADUKARA, VALAKAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SMT.A.S.BEENU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. VIJAYAN NAIR, PUTHUMANA HOUSE, AYAVANA P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. PRINCE KURIAKOSE, VANUKUZHIYIL HOUSE, RAKKADU, MEKKADAMPU, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PULIMOOTTIL SHOPPING ARCADE, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1268 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 269/00. it is the case of the appellant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor vehicle, the vehicle hit against a stone on the side of the road and overturned which resulted in sustainment of injuries to the appellant. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex parte. The 3rd respondent filed a written statement admitting that the scooter was insured but contended that the petitioner in the claim petition himself was riding the scooter and had sustained injuries because of his own negligence. Before the trial court, Exts. A1 to A8 and Ext.X1 were marked. PW1 and RW1 were examined. The Tribunal did not accept the case of the petitioner and therefore dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. PW1, the claimant, had deposed that he was travelling as a pillion rider in the scooter driven by one Prince Kuriakose. It is his case that the vehicle hit MACA No.1268/04 2 against a stone and capsized. It is admitted by him that he was taken to the Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery. In cross- examination it is admitted by him that Prince Kuriakose is a close friend of him residing hardly 200 meters away from his house. PW1 is not able to remember the date of accident or the person who had taken him to the hospital. He also does not know how he was taken to the Medcial Mission Hospital. The Tribunal opined that PW1 failed to gave reasonable answers to the questions relating to the accident. It is true that the Police has initiated action against the 2nd respondent and had filed a charge sheet. But as per the charge sheet, the case is that the vehicle driven by the accused capsized at the road margin and the petitioner was thrown out to the road. So this is the second version of the accident. Now the third version comes from the medical officer of Medical Mission Hospital, who is examined as RW1, is that the claimant had gone to the hospital contending that the scooter had hit a pedestrian and without process he had fallen down from the scooter and sustained injuries. Ext.X1 is the copy of the accident register cum wound certificate which indicates that the injured was totally conscious and that one Kunjumon had taken him to the hospital. PW1 namely the petitioner MACA No.1268/04 3 has not produced a copy of Ext.X1 because it does not support his contention. PW1 also pretended ignorance regarding the rider of the scooter. All these circumstances led the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that all is not well in the case. There must be some intrinsically reliable and inherently probable materials to sustain the case of the petitioner. Here is a case where the person injured and who was totally conscious does not remember about the facts, which are very relevant to his case and has got almost three inconsistent cases regarding the nature of the accident. So all is not well and the evidence of PW1 does not inspire confidence in me as well regarding the contention that he had sustained injuries as a pillion rider to the 2nd respondent. Therefore, I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1268/04 4