IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON MONDAY, THE 9TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 20TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 2 of 2006() -------------------- OPMV.1317/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN OP (MV). ---------------------------------------------- JAYAPRAKASH, S/O.LATE REGHAVAN NAIR, ATHIRA HOUSE, PARRALI P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP (MV). -------------------------------------- 1. A.UNNI, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN NAIR, MAPPILAKULAMBUKALAM HOUSE, NANNIODE P.O., CHITTUR, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RAHULAL, S/O.RAGHAVAN, ATTUPAYIL HOUSE, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. M/S. UNITED INDIAINSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, DOOR NO.10/190, G.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. No.2 of 2006 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT R.BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. His claim for compensation for personal injuries suffered was turned down by the Tribunal holding that there is no material to show that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. 2. According to the appellant, he had suffered injuries in a motor accident. He was a riding pillion and the 1st respondent was the rider. The accident was on 09.11.97. He was hospitalised. He continued to be in the hospital till 27.11.97. After discharge from the hospital he came to know that no crime has been registered. Accordingly he lodged a complaint on 28.01.98 and a crime was registered. Investigation was conducted and final report was filed raising allegations against the 1st respondent. 3. The 1st respondent appeared before the Tribunal, but did not file any objections. The 2nd respondent, the owner of the vehicle remained exparte. The 3rd respondent insurer contended M.A.C.A. No.2 of 2006 2 that no accident had taken place as alleged. The investigation by the 3rd respondent revealed and the Tribunal was informed that the appellant had informed the doctor in the earliest wound certificate that injuries were suffered at his house when he fell. In these circumstances the insurance company contended that no accident having taken place, the appellant is not entitled for any compensation. 4. Parties went to trial on these contentions. The claimant/appellant examined himself as PW1 and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked. The insurance company marked Exts.B1 to B3. 5. The Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no acceptable evidence to conclude that the appellant had suffered injuries in a motor accident. In coming to this conclusion, the Tribunal noted the long gap of time between the date of the alleged accident, ie. 09.11.97 and the date of registration of the F.I.R, ie. 28.01.98. The Tribunal further took note of the fact that in spite of the specific contention raised by the insurance company on the basis of the investigation report received by them that the appellant, who had at the first instance informed the doctor of the hospital where he got treated that he had suffered injuries when he fell in his house, had not chosen to M.A.C.A. No.2 of 2006 3 adduce any evidence to show that the earliest medical document showed that the injuries were suffered in an accident. He did not also produce any documents to show that the doctor who treated him was ever informed that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal took note of Ext.A5 reference card and Ext.A6 medical certificate to conclude that the medical officer was never apprised of the present version that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. The Tribunal further took note of the apparent incongruity between Ext.A4 charge sheet produced by the appellant and Ext.B2 charge sheet produced by the insurance company. It is, in these circumstances, that the Tribunal did not entertain the satisfaction that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal went totally wrong in drawing conclusions on the basis of the alleged incongruity between Ext.A4 and Ext.B2. The alleged incongruity was inconsequential and at any rate that could not have tilted the scales against the appellant. 7. We will not look into the alleged incongruity between Ext.A4 and Ext.B2. The question is whether sans that incongruity there is any material to show that the injuries were M.A.C.A. No.2 of 2006 4 suffered in a motor accident. The burden definitely was on the appellant/claimant to show that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. More so, when specific contentions were raised by the 3rd respondent that the injuries were not suffered in the accident and the earliest medical document shows that it was a case of fall inside the house. The broad circumstances also certainly appear to be against the appellant. The co-passenger in the vehicle, the rider, the 1st respondent, had not suffered any injuries. The vehicle also had not suffered any damage. Medical certificate Ext.A6 or the disability certificate Ext.A9 did not also refer at all to any injuries suffered in a motor accident. 8. We are in perfect agreement with the Tribunal that the appellant/claimant has not discharged his burden to show that the injuries were suffered in a motor accident. In the light of the specific contention of the insurance company, the burden was undoubtedly heavy on the shoulders of the appellant to prove that he had suffered the injuries in a motor accident. We find total lack of evidence on this aspect. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant prays that an indulgent further opportunity may be granted to the appellant. The counsel points out that disability has been suffered by the M.A.C.A. No.2 of 2006 5 appellant. Remand cannot be a matter of indulgence on the part of this Court. A claimant clamoring for an opportunity for remand must show the Court why and under what circumstances relevant evidence could not be adduced before the Tribunal at the appropriate time. We are not satisfied that sufficient reasons exist to justify the grant of an indulgent further opportunity to the claimant. 10. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. No costs. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) rtr/-