IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 15TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 161 of 2009 ---------------------- OPMV.515/2000 of IST ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: --------------------------- P.SREEJITH, S/O.MOHANDAS PANICKER, 31 YEARS, SREEMODHA VILLA, PARAMBIL HOUSE PO.CHEVAYOOR , CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. A.P.VIJAYAN, S/O.CHEKKU VYSIAR, ABIYANPURATH VEEDU, PANATHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM, PO.KOYILANDY, CALICUT, (RC OWNER OF SCOOTER NO.KL-11-2995). 2. SREEJITH, S/O.SREEDHARA PANICKER, KARAYIL HOUSE, PANATHALAYANI AMSOM, KOTHAMANGALAM DESOM, PO.KOYILANDY, CALICUT DRIVER OF M/C.NO.KL-11-2995). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE OP.B.NO.117, MAIN ROAD, BADAGARA, CALICUT (INSURER OF M/C.NOK-11/2995.) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K. ABDUL REHIM JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 161 OF 2009 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT RAMACHANDRAN NAIR,J The appeal is filed against the order of the MACT rejecting the claim petition filed for compensation by the appellant. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and have gone through the award. 2. The appellant's case is that he was a pillion rider and the motor cycle was driven by the 2nd respondent. The Doctor who examined the appellant reported that the accident was one caused by the appellant himself and that at the time of examining him, he was found to be smelling alcohol. In the FIR taken on the basis of statement given by the 2nd respondent, the accident was caused on account of collision between two motor cycles. Claim petition was rejected because of the inconsistencies in the case of appellant and 2nd respondent and based on the reference report by the police. In fact, it is seen that, the date of accident itself is different in the versions given by the appellant and the 2nd respondent. The accident MACA : 161/2009 -:2:- happened at 2 a.m. in the night and the appellant failed to establish the case pleaded before the MACT. We, therefore, do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the MACT. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE ttb