IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 9TH APRIL 2010 / 19TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1485 of 2005() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1581/2001 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SAJEEVAN. N.P., S/O.KRISHNAN, RESIDING AT NARIPARAMMAL, P.O.THOOVAKKUNNU. BY ADV. SRI.CIBI THOMAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------------------- 1. BHASKARAN, S/O.KELU, RESIDING AT ONIYANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O.PUTHOOR, PANOOR. 2. ANIL KUMAR. N.K., S/O.N.K. RAGHAVAN, 41, SRIVELUR MAIN ROAD, CHENNAI. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 1ST FLOOR, 235 NM ROAD, AVADI, CHENNAI. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/04/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. A.K.BAHSEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 1485 of 2005 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 9th day of April, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, the claimant in O.P. (MV) No.1581 of 2001 of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Addl. District Judge), Thalassery challenges the judgment and award of the Tribunal dated February 1, 2005 dismissing the O.P. 2. The facts leading to this appeal, in brief, are these:- The claimant was aged 35 at the time of the accident and used to earn Rs.2,500/- per month, according to the claimant. On July 27, 2000 at about 7 a.m. while the claimant was pillion riding on a motor cycle bearing registration No.TM-H 5414 from Puthoor and reached near Panoor Police Station, rider of the motor cycle lost control and the motor cycle dashed against a compound wall on the side of the road. The claimant sustained serious injuries. According to him, the accident occurred due to the rash and MACA 148505 2 negligent riding of the offending motor cycle by the first respondent. First respondent as the rider, second respondent as the owner and third respondent as the insurer of the offending vehicle are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation to the claimant. 3. The first respondent, the rider of the motor cycle,filed written statement admitting the accident. Respondents 2 and 3, the owner and insurer of the offending motor cycle, remained absent before the Tribunal. 4. Claimant was examined as PW1 and and Exts.A1 to A7 were marked on the side of the claimant before the Tribunal. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the respondents. The Tribunal, on an appreciation of evidence, found that the claimant/appellant was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred due to the negligence on his part and that therefore, he is not entitled to any compensation. The claimant has now come up in appeal challenging the said finding of the Tribunal. MACA 148505 3 5. Heard the counsel for the appellant/claimant and the counsel for Insurance Company. 6. The accident is not disputed. The Tribunal found that the claimant was riding the motor cycle and that the accident occurred due to his negligence. Therefore, the only question which arises for consideration is whether the said finding of the Tribunal can be sustained? 7. Ext.A2 is the copy of the wound certificate issued from the hospital. It is seen that the matter has not been reported to the police. It is also seen therein that the offending motor cycle was ridden by the claimant. Ext.A1 copy of the complaint filed by the claimant before the Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thalassery was not numbered or forwarded to the police under section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The counsel for the appellant/claimant would say that the police has registered a case as C.C. No.423 of 2000 againt the first respondent, but no document is produced by the claimant before the Tribunal. The first respondent fileld written statement before the Tribunal, admitting the claim. MACA 148505 4 Respondents 2 and 3 remained absent before the Tribunal. The third respondent Insurance Company is not seriously contesting the case. All these facts cast serious doubt regarding the version of the claimant that he was pillion riding on the motor cycle at the time of the accident. For all these reasons, we are inclined to hold that the claimant was riding the motor cycle at the time of the accident and the accident occurred due to his negligence. We, therefore, confirm the said finding of the Tribunal. Consequently, we find that the claimant/appellant is not entitled to any compensation. 8. In the result, the appeal is devoid of any merit and the same is hereby dismissed. The parties shall bear their own costs. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.