IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1618 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.3665/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH M.K., S/O.KUTTAPPAN, MENOTHPARAMBIL HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O. THRISSUR. 2. V.K.SUBHASH, S/O.KOCHUNNI, VIYATH HOUSE, MARATHAKKARA P.O., THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1618/07 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1925/07 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1618/07 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 15.12.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1618 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.3665/2000. The claimant, alleged to have injuries in a road accident and the tribunal awarded an amount of Rs. 76,850/-. It is the case of the claimant that on 19.8.2000 while he was riding a motor cycle and when it reached to near Ollur, another motor cycle came in a rash and negligent manner hit on the petitioner's vehicle resulting in sustainment of injuries. 2. The first respondent would contend that the accident was due to negligent of the claimant himself. The 2nd respondent would contend that there was no accident involving the said vehicle. As per the records kept in Holy Family Hospital, Ollur, the petitioner attended the casualty on 19.8.2000 with a history of alleged fall from bike. In the discharge summary issued from the Aswini Hospital, Thrissur it is recorded that the injury was due to a hit by an autorickshaw. The tribunal found in favour of the claimant and ordered compensation. It is against the same the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. M.A.C.A.No. 1618/2007 -2- 3. Heard the learned counsel for both sides. The tribunal was relying upon the police records to arrive at a decision regarding the factum of accident. Even if the case of the claimant is true, the accident had taken place in the month of August and the law was set in motion by filing a complaint only after 3 ½ months. As usual a reference was made under section 156(3) and police has filed a charge sheet. The first document namely the document relating to the admission of the claimant immediately after the accident would reveal that the cause of injuries on account of the fall from a bike. When he was admitted after about 1 ½ months in another hospital, the reason given is hit by an autorickshaw. The trial court accepted the explanation that as he was unconscious, the information was furnished by the respondents. First of all it has to be proved that he was unconscious. If he was unconscious it was not possible for him by any stretch imagination to find out who had given the information. So the acceptance of such an explanation given by PW1 cannot be accepted by this Court. If really he is involved in an accident and if it is proved he is entitled to the compensation. But the factum of not reporting the matter to any authority for a period of 3 ½ months and giving a conflicting statement in each and every hospital, where he had visited and finally setting the law in motion M.A.C.A.No. 1618/2007 -3- after 3 ½ months and are all matters which has to be seriously considered by the tribunal. Original records kept in the hospital would speak in volumes about the cause of accident. Those records can be produced, parties can be permitted to adduce evidence and the court can find out the truth and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Mere filing of charge sheet on the basis of private complaint filed by party after about 3 ½ months from the date of accident cannot be considered as a valid evidence, when there are conflicting materials staring at the face of the claimant. Therefore I set aside the award passed by the tribunal and remit back the case to the tribunal with a direction to permit the claimant as well as the respondents to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It has to be also understood that I have not expressed any view on the merits of the case and everything be decided on appreciation of evidence and the materials that is made available before the court. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 20.1.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm