IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 4TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 13TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1238 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1607/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ----------------------------------- MARIAMMA JOSEPH, W/O. JOSEPH, RESIDING AT PALANATTIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL, VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.ANNIE PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. JOSE, S/O. OUSEPH, PALANATTIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL, VALAKOM, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. BABYCHAN, HOUSE NO.4/109, KAPPIL HOUSE, CHOTTANIKKARA. * 3. P.V.JOSEPH @ OUSEPH, S/O. VARKEY, PALANATTIL HOUSE, KUNNACKAL, VALAKOM. (DEAD). 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO.1, DEEPTHI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, PALLIMUKKU, ERNAKULAM. *R3 IS DEAD. IMPLEADMENT OF LR'S IS DISPENSED WITH AS PER ORDER DATED 4.11.08. ADV. SRI.A.R. GEORGE FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1238 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of November, 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) 1607/02. The claimant is the wife of 3rd respondent and it is her case that while she was travelling as a pillion rider in a scooter driven by him on account of the negligent driving of the 3rd respondent, hit on the back of the K.S.R.T.C. bus resulting in injuries to her. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials available dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. At the out set I may like to say that there was an attempt not to disclose even the relationship between the claimant and the 3rd respondent. The claimant did not set the law in motion. It was after some time her son filed a complaint before the Magistrate's Court which on reference u/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. was investigated, M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2006 -:2:- a case registered, the accused entered appearance and pleaded guilty. It is very easy for a son to file a complaint and father to come before the Court and plead guilty to make the basis for a claim application. The Tribunal has dealt with the matter in a way from where it can be seen that there were strong circumstances that all is not well with the case. The Tribunal held that if really she had sustained injuries while her husband was riding the scooter certainly it would have been the husband the first person to accompany her to hospital but not a third party as in this case. Similarly, when there is a hit from behind the scooter is expected to sustain some damages. Absolutely there was no damages especially in the backdrop of the pleading that scooter had hit behind the bus and overturned. Similarly, no police intimation was given and hospital authorities also did not do it. Most probably the petitioner did not want to implicate anybody with respect to the cause of the accident. The Tribunal found that a private complaint was designedly filed by the son only to create a basis for initiation of a motor accident claim. I M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2006 -:3:- feel the approach of the Tribunal is correct and these types of cases need not be entertained for the reason it will send a wrong message. Therefore I decline to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-