IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2010 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 780 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1285/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: --------------------------------------------- 1. SHIBU, S/O.BASHEER, RESIDING AT MULLAMPURATHU VEETTIL, KAVUMKARA KARA, VELLOORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. AZEEZ, S/O.MAKKAR, KOLATHAIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA, VELLORKUNNAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. ASHARAF, S/O.MAKKAR, KOLATHAIMATTATHIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA KARA, MARKET POST, MUVATTUPUZHA. R1 & R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V.ELIAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.1004/2007 IN MACA NO.780/2007 CLOSED 16/03/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 16th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV)No.1285/2003. The insurance company had challenged the award passed by the tribunal awarding the claimant a compensation of Rs.42,866/=. The contention of the insurance company as revealed from the award is to the effect that it was not the first respondent who was riding the vehicle, but it was the second respondent who was riding the vehicle. The tribunal considered Exts.A1 to A5 documents. The First Information Statement and registration of the crime revealed that, it is alleged that, the first respondent has driven the auto rickshaw. The police after due investigation has only charge sheeted the first respondent. The tribunal further observed that Exts.A1 to A5 were marked on consent and therefore, it was futile on the part of the insurance company to contend otherwise. The investigation records point out that auto rickshaw was driven by the first respondent in the : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007 OP(MV). 2. Mere suspicion raised by the insurance company shall not be a substitute for the proof. The court cannot decide the matter on the basis of conjectures and surmises and therefore, I do not find any valid ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Claims Tribunal. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.780 OF 2007