IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2007 / 14TH PAUSHA 1928 MFA.No. 535 of 1998() --------------------- OPMV.89/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHALAKUDY NOW REPRPESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI – 35. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. JEEVARAJ, S/O. KRISHNAN, MULLANATTU HOUSE, NAMBHAZHIKKADU AMSOM & DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. MOHANDAS, S/O. RAMAN MENON, MOOKOLAMANDAMPARAMBIL HOUSE, THAIKKAD DESOM, CHAVAKKAD TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. PIN – 680 104. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 2354 OF 1998 IN M.F.A.No. 535 OF 1998 DISMISSED. 04.01.2007 SD/- K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. /true copy/ P.A. TO JUDGE K.T. SANKARAN, J. ................................................................................... M.F.A. No. 535 OF 1998 ................................................................................... Dated this the 4th January , 2007 J U D G M E N T In the claim petition filed by the first respondent herein, the M.A.C.T. awarded a sum of Rs. 29,000/- as compensation in his favour. The petitioner in the O.P.(MV) was riding a bicycle and he was hit by a scooter driven by the first respondent in the O.P.(MV) on 06.05.1993. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligent riding of the scooter by the first respondent in the O.P.(MV). A sum of Rs. 1,43,650/- was claimed as compensation limiting it to Rs.1,00,000/- . The first respondent before the Tribunal remained ex parte. The second respondent-Insurer contended in the written statement that the accident occurred due to negligence of the petitioner . It is also stated that in the enquiry it is revealed that the accident occurred not due to any rash and negligent driving of the first respondent in the O.P.(MV). 2. No oral evidence was adduced by any of the parties before the M.F.A. No. 535 OF 1998 2 Tribunal. The Tribunal relied on Ext. A1-F.I.R. and in the absence of any contra evidence on the part of the first respondent, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the first respondent . There is no case for the insurer that the petitioner as well as the first respondent before the Tribunal colluded together to make a false claim. In the absence of any evidence on the part of any of the respondents, it cannot be said that the Tribunal was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent, particularly in view of Ext.A1- F.I.R. The contentions raised in the written statement of the insurer are based on hearsay knowledge and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the petitioner. No grounds are made out for interference. Accordingly M.F.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs. K.T. SANKARAN, JUDGE. lk K.T. SANKARAN, J. ........................................................ M.F.A. No. 535 OF 1998 ......................................................... Dated this the 4th January, 2007 J U D G M E N T