IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH OCTOBER 2010 / 6TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 194 of 2008() ----------------------------- OPMV.707/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: ---------------------------------- SIBY THOMAS, AGED 34 YEARS, S/O.THOMAS, RESIDING AT PUTHOOR HOUSE, ATTAPPALAM KARA, KUMALY VILLAGE, PEERUMEDU TALUK. BY ADVS. SRI.B.RENJITH MARAR SRI.L.RAJESH NARAYAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. M.N.SHAJI, S/O.NARAYANAN, MENON PARAMBIL HOUSE, CHALIKKUDYMEDU, VANDANMEDU, NOW RESIDING AT KUMILY KARA, KUMILY VILLAGE, PEERMED TALUK. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MUNDUKOTTAKKAL CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.M.HEMALATHA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 194 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P. (MV)707/03. The claimant, alleged to be a pillion rider in a motorbike, sustained injuries in a road accident when the motorbike overturned. Therefore moved an application for compensation. It is contended by the insurance company that he himself was driving the vehicle and this is only a case filed to get compensation without basis of truth. On appreciation of the materials the trial court dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. At the out set it has to be stated that there has been inordinate delay in setting M.A.C.A. 194 OF 2008 -:2:- the criminal law in motion. If really a person as a pillion rider had sustained injuries in a road accident on account of the negligence of another person it should have been reported to the police and the police could have registered a case against the actual rider of the vehicle. Here the delay is not one or two weeks but it is a period of six months and therefore the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that it is a very important piece of evidence which points against the truth of the matter. Even after six months it was only on the basis of a private complaint an FIR was registered and further proceedings done. 3. The 2nd aspect of the matter is that when he was admitted in the hospital it was reported to the hospital only as a fall from a bike and as no injuries sustained as a pillion rider of the vehicle. It goes a long way to establish that no other person was in the picture M.A.C.A. 194 OF 2008 -:3:- when he was admitted in the hospital. Ordinarily when a vehicle meets with an accident on account of skidding and running over the rubbles necessarily there will be at least a scratch on the body of the person who was driving the bike. We do not find the alleged rider anywhere near the hospital nor had taken even the petitioner to the hospital. So these were points detailed to hold that the case of a pillion rider is only a subsequent development. It is true that the claimant had sustained injuries when the bike had fallen. That does not mean that he was a pillion rider of the bike. When you are claiming compensation u/s 166 of the M.V.Act there is a duty cast upon you to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the same. The independent evidence alleged to be adduced is that of PW3 who was a Tata sumo driver who according to him was coming behind the motor bike. The trial court has M.A.C.A. 194 OF 2008 -:4:- not accepted his evidence as it appeared to be not trustworthy. Therefore I do not find that any mistake is committed by the trial court in dismissing the claim petition. Therefore this appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-