IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1624 of 2006(C) ---------------------------------- OPMV.377/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- THRESSIAMMA, W/O.MATHEW, AGED 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT KOTTUPPILLIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM KARA, MANGALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE PAUL RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS : ------------------------------------- 1. K.G.ABRAHAM, S/O.GEORGE, CRAFTMAN FITTER, F.A.C.T. P.O., UDYOGAMANDAL. 2. SUBODHKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, ENANELLOOR KARA, ENANELLOOR VILLAGE. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI, KOTTUPPILLIL HOUSE, VAZHAKULAM KARA, MANGALLOOR VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 5. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY FOR R.5 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1624 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)377/02. The claimant is the wife of 4th respondent in the case. It is the case of the claimant in the petition that while she was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor bike bearing Reg.No.KL7A-9562 driven by her husband and when it reached the place of accident, on seeing a group of buffalos attempting to cross the road, her husband happened to apply sudden break, at that time a motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent came from the back hit on the rear side of the motorcycle as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. 2. On the other hand, the contesting respondent insurance company would submit that no other vehicle was involved in the accident and this is a false case filed to claim compensation from the insurance company. In the trial court M.A.C.A. 1624 OF 2006 -:2:- PWs.1 and 2 were examined. Exts.A1 to A12 and B1 were marked. On an analysis of the evidence available the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the petitioner has failed to prove the involvement of the 2nd respondent in the accident and dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the case of the insurance company cannot be accepted in the light of the various documents produced by the claimant in the case. It has to be remembered that a criminal law is set in motion by giving a first information statement. The accident had taken place at 10 a.m. on 19.1.02 and on the same day at 5 p.m. a constable of the police station has recorded the version of the claimant regarding the accident. She has stated before the said police that her husband was riding the motorcycle at a high speed and on seeing the buffalos attempting to cross the road he applied sudden break as a result of which she fell down and sustained injuries. This is the first statement M.A.C.A. 1624 OF 2006 -:3:- made by her before the police authorities. But on the next day when she was questioned by the police, i.e. on 20.1.02, as is seen from the case diary, she has a different case to tell. It is at that point of time she would submit that there was another vehicle coming from behind that had hit on the back of the motorcycle in which she was travelling and accident had occurred. The claimant herself has admitted about giving the F.I. Statement before the police and she was also admitted that she had understood the contents of the same. Therefore a signed statement given by a person at the initial point of time certainly has to be given more weight in cases of this nature. 4. Learned counsel would argue that there is an entry in the wound certificate which would show that the accident had taken place on account of the hit by a motor bike from behind. It has to be stated if that has been real cause of the accident there was no necessity for the claimant to have given a signed statement before the police in a totally different manner. I had also perused the wound M.A.C.A. 1624 OF 2006 -:4:- certificate, a copy of which is marked as Ext.A6 where the word 'maruthi' is written scored off and the word 'bike' is written. Similarly, it will appear that as if the claimant was travelling in a scooter. Normally a wound certificate or even the F.I. Statement is not the encyclopedia of the relevant materials in a case. We do not find such elaborate description regarding the way in which the accident had taken place. So it can be seen that all is not well with the said entry. 5. Then the next point to be considered is if there has been an impact on account of the hit from behind necessarily there should have been damages sustained to both the vehicles. The scene mahazar which is prepared on 20.1.02 would show that there is no damages except some scratches which according to the person who prepared the scene mahazar had been there in the recent past. The Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector who is competent to assess he damages inspected the vehicle ridden by the claimant's husband as well as other vehicle and found that there were M.A.C.A. 1624 OF 2006 -:5:- no damages to the vehicle at all. When a vehicle is stopped by applying sudden break and another vehicle from behind comes and hit on that vehicle necessarily there will be damages and there is every possibility of both the vehicles falling down. The person who prepared the scene mahazar was not able to see the other vehicle in the accident spot though the vehicle in which the claimant was riding was available on the spot. The learned counsel would further contend that the 2nd respondent was charge sheeted and he has pleaded guilty and therefore it is an indication of what has transpired. It is a settled position of law that the claims Tribunal are not bound by the judgment of a criminal Court. The Tribunal have got the power to independently assess and find out the genuineness of the case. So an over all analysis of these materials would convincingly establish that the vehicle driven by 2nd respondent is only subsequently implanted for the purpose of claiming compensation. The learned Tribunal had considered the matter elaborately and had given the verdict. I also had perused the evidence of M.A.C.A. 1624 OF 2006 -:6:- PW1 wherein she has categorically stated that, ''.................................................................................... ......................................................” She also submits that what she had submitted had been recorded and then only she signed the F.I. Statement. But when she was confronted with F.I. Statement she attempts to get away from it by stating that she is not in a position to read the same. So it shows that she is not prepared to speak the truth. Therefore I do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal in arriving at the decision that the claimant had failed in proving the involvement of the vehicle ridden by the 2nd respondent in the case. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-