IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 28TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 755 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.398/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., II FLOOR, EAST FORT COMPLEX, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND R1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. MOHAMMED ALI S/O. MOIDU, KOORIKKATTIL VEEDU, MINNURKKODE POST, THRIKKADEENRI, OTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. K.MUSTHAFA S/O. MOHAMMED MUSTHAFA, KALLURAKKAL VEEDU, THRIKKADEERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. K.HAMZA, S/O. MOIDU, KOORIKKATTIL HOUSE, MANNURIKKODE, THRIKKADEERI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.755/04 ORDER ON IA No. 1759/04 IN MACA No.755/04 DISMISSED 19.9.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 755 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 19th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottapalam, in OP(MV) 398/01. It is the case of the claimant that he had sustained injuries in a road accident. He was hit by an autorickshaw and the Tribunal awarded him a total compensation of Rs.17,750/-. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the case of the claimant is not true for the reason that it is recorded in the case sheet that the injury is sustained on account of a fall and secondly that the vehicle, which is alleged to have hit him, belongs to his brother. Learned counsel would submit that it raises a suspicion and contend that this is a false case filed to claim compensation. 3. It is true that immediately after the accident the claimant had visited Semalk Hospital, Ottapalam where there is an entry regarding the history of the person’s illness presented with pain right MACA No. 755/04 2 leg after fall. It was also pointed out that the claimant had sustained fracture of the tibia. The hospital authorities naturally did not inform the police. Subsequently, the law was set in motion by filing a private complaint and a crime was registered. After due investigation, the police filed Ext.A5 charge sheet. The claimant was examined as PW1. In the chief examination he had clearly deposed that the vehicle came from behind and hit him. In the cross-examination suggestions has been put to the effect that the injury were not sustained on account of the road accident. He had denied the suggestion that he had stated before the authorities of the Semalk Hospital that the injury was sustained on account of a fall. He would further reiterate that “ ”. So the evidence available in this case is the case sheet Ext.X1, the oral evidence of PW1 and also the charge sheet filed by the police after due investigation. 4. In order to hold that a case is false there must be acceptable materials, which satisfies the conscience of the court regarding the same. A mere suspicion or one entry in a document should not lead the court to jump to the conclusion that everything is MACA No. 755/04 3 false. It is under such circumstances the law envisages the analysis and appreciation of evidence. The civil cases are to be decided on the preponderance and probabilities of the case. It is true that the statement made by the claimant that it was a fall coupled with the involvement of the vehicle owned by the brother can create suspicion in the mind. But as rightly observed by the Tribunal a person may not be interested in initiating a criminal prosecution against his own brother and therefore could have averted it. One cannot say that the information is supplied to the hospital authorities by the claimant, when he totally denies it. On the contrary independent agency like the investigating officer had conducted investigation and on the basis of the materials available had filed charge sheet before the criminal court. So the evidence of PW1 coupled with the charge sheet would indicate that the probability is more as spoken to by PW1. There is no contra evidence tendered in this case to dislodge the evidence tendered by PW1 or the documentary evidence Ext.A5. Therefore in these types of cases it is desirable to hold when evidence is satisfactory in favour of the claimant especially when no contra evidence is forthcoming. Further MACA No. 755/04 4 it has also to be observed that the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act relating to Claims Tribunal compensation is a beneficial legislation intended to confer benefit on the affected victims. Therefore, the compensation shall not be denied merely on the basis of some possible suspicion. So I agree with the finding of the Tribunal. I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 755/04 5