IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2009 / 4TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1937 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.663/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT(OWNER) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- SUNILKUMAR, SUNITHA NIVAS, PULAMON, KOTTARAKKARA, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU@ VIPINKUMAR S/O.SADASIVAN, VIPIN BHAVAN, KUTTITHANNI, NELLIMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SAJIKUMAR S/O SREEDHARAN, KUMAR BHAVAN, MANKALA, NELLIMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No.1937 of 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26 th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT The appellant who was the 1st respondent in O.P(M.V) No.663 of 2000 on the file of the MACT, Neyyattinkara challenges the award dated 30.10.2008 as per which the 1st respondent/claimant has been awarded a sum of Rs.71,800/-. 2. The only ground on which the appellant takes exception to the award is that he has ceased to be the owner of the scooter bearing Registration No.KL-02-8158, since he had transferred the same to one Dileep as per Annexure A1 agreement dated 22.9.1997 and therefore he is not responsible for the occurrence which took place on 26.2.2000. 3. Apart from the fact that the appellant did not get the agreement marked as an exhibit, he did not also mount the witness box to speak in terms of the transfer. When a party fails to mount the witness box to speak in terms of his case and he MACA No.1937/09 2 does not offer himself for cross-examination by the opposite party, the court can legitimately draw an inference that his case is not true (Vidhyadhar v.Manickrao (1999(3) SCC 573)). Hence, the Tribunal below cannot be found fault with for holding the appellant liable for the amount. The insurer was already exonerated by this Court on an earlier occasion since there was no coverage for pillion rider. Hence, the persons liable for the accident are the owner and driver. That being the position I do not find any illegality in the award passed by the Tribunal below. This appeal is dismissed in limine. Dated this the 26th day of August, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE sj