IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH JUNE 2008 / 4TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1525 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1112/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- BINU KURIAN, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. KURIAN, RESIDING AT KANJIRATHINKAL HOUSE, PAINGOTTOOR KARA, KADAVOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. M.A. ANTONY @ JOLLY, KANJATTU HOUSE, SOUTH PUNNAMATTOM, KADAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. CENTRAL MOTORS, RAZIA BUILDING, THOTTAKKATTU KARA, ALUVA. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MADAPURAMBIL CHEMBERS, M.C. ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.M.A.VAHEEDA BABU - R2 SRI.M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM - R2 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1525 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha whereby it dismissed O.P.(MV)No.1112 of 2001. Aggrieved by the said decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. The case of the claimant is to the effect that while he was walking along the road, a motor cycle came from behind and hit on him due to rash and negligent driving of the rider, resulting in injuries to him. On the other hand, the insurance company would contend that no such accident had taken place and the injuries sustained by the claimant are on account of the fall from a scooter. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned counsel for the insurance company. It is true that 15 days after the date of accident a private complaint is filed to set the law in motion on the basis of which a charge sheet is filed. Immediately after the accident the claimant was taken to the hospital wherein it is recorded that the “history of fall from of two wheeler”. The Doctor who had recorded the same has been MACA 1525/2006 -:2:- examined in this case as PW4. He has clearly deposed before the Tribunal that the information was supplied by the injured as well as the persons, who accompanied by the injured. He also stated that intimation would have been given to the police if it were a medico legal case and that no intimation was given to the police in pursuance of Ext.A6. His evidence has to be given considerable weight for the purpose of determining the case. A tempo driver was examined as PW2. The court below analyzed the evidence and he would depose that the information about the accident was given by the rider of the motor bike, but in the cross examination, he would submit that he does not know about it. Therefore the Tribunal did not believe PW2. PW3 admittedly has not seen the accident and that he came to the scene of occurrence only after the accident. Then the next witness is the Sub Inspector of Police, who is examined as PW5. He would submit that he had conducted enquiry and investigation and there was damage to the vehicle and that the brake lever was damaged, etc. On the other hand, from Ext.A4 document which is the Asst.Motor Vehicle Inspector's report produced by the the claimant itself would show that the alleged vehicle had not sustained any damage at all. The evidence of PW5 therefore cannot be believed. It is a well settled principle that it is not the quantum of evidence that has to be looked into but it is quality of evidence that has to be given credit to. As MACA 1525/2006 -:3:- rightly found by the court below the only uninterested impartial witness is PW4, who had given a cogent picture about the accident. Therefore I find that the Tribunal has not erred in arriving at a decision. 3. Further, the Tribunal did have the opportunity to see the witnesses in person, their demeanour and thereafter had appreciated the same. So from the materials available the evidence of PW4 can be looked into for deciding the case. If really there had been an accident as spoken to by PW1 or PW2 what was the necessity in delaying in setting the law in motion for a period of 15 days. It also indicates that they had something in their mind and only after a period of two weeks they wanted to set the law in motion. What is stated by PW1 and his witnesses are not correct. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-