IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 503 of 2006(F) ----------------------------------- O.P.(MV).NO.2034/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------- ALEYAMMA JOY, W/O. JOY, VELIYAKULANGARAYIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA P.O., MOONGAMKUNNU BHAGOM. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY. RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. E.V. BINOY, S/O. VARGHESE, ERAPAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA P.O., KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. RAFI SATHAR, W/O. LATE SATHAR, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PEZHACKAPPILLY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.BOBBY MATHEW KOOTHATTUKULAM FOR R1, ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R2, ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.503 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of August 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.2034 of 2001. It is the case of the claimant that while she was travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL-7V/3731, another auto rickshaw bearing Regn.No.KL7/7169 came from the opposite direction colluded with the autorickshaw in which the claimant was travelling and that resulted in injuries to her. The 2nd respondent in the petition stated about the policy of insurance and the 3rd respondent admitted that the vehicle bearing No.KL7V/3731 was insured by them. The 2nd respondent denied the genuineness of the claim and also regarding the negligence of the first respondent. The Tribunal, after an exhaustive consideration of the materials held that the case spoken to by the claimants are not acceptable and therefore dismissed all the claim applications. It is against that decision, one of the claimants in that common award in O.P.(MV)No.2034/2001 has come forward with this case. 2. The law was set in motion by registering an FIR on the basis of a MACA 503/2006 -:2:- first information statement given by the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.2038 of 2001. She had been examined before the Tribunal as PW1 also. The First Information Statement was given on 10.7.2001 at 5.00 P.M. It is the case of the first informant that while she along with her mother and others were travelling in an auto rickshaw bearing KL7V/3731 and when it reached near the place of accident on seeing another autorickshaw coming from the opposite direction, the driver of the autorickshaw swerved the vehicle, as a result of which he lost control and it capsized and resulted in injuries to the petitioner. The name of the driver is given as Binoy and it is on the basis of this a case was registered making Binoy as the accused. So the first statement, i.e. given after the accident by one of the injured is to the effect that the auto rickshaw in which they were travelling capsized resulting in injuries to them. Now what is pleaded in the claim applications is that while they were travelling in the above mentioned auto rickshaw another auto rickshaw bearing No.KL7/7169 came from the opposite direction and colluded with the autorickshaw in which they were travelling. It is the driver, owner and insurance company of KL7V/3731, who are made parties to the proceeding. When examined as PW1 this first informant has admitted before the court that she had stated before the police regarding the capsizing of the vehicle in which she was travelling and she would submit MACA 503/2006 -:3:- that it was false. Again, she would admit that the vehicle in which she was travelling was driven by Kishore and the factum that she was stated the name as Binoy was also false. The Head Constable, who recorded the statement of the insured preapred the body notes relating to PW1, her mother, Kishore, etc. PW1 has given a version regarding the accident as PW1, giving a total go bye to what she had spoken to the police immediately after the accident. It was also stated that PW1 had deposed that the said Kishore did not have a valid driving license. So, it is in this back ground one has to analyse the materials. One may be illiterate, one may be unable to remember the number of the vehicle, but one cannot forget the way in which the accident had taken place. If really, another vehicle has come and colluded with the vehicle while she was travelling it would not have been the first statement that she should have given before the police. When confronted with such a difficult situation, it is attempted to be explained by showing that they were made to say so by the autorickshaw involved, viz., Binoy and company. Her statement itself would reveal that her husband had followed her to the hospital and so the said story of getting a false statement does not arise at all. Learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends before me that the Tribunal ought not have brushed aside the police's charge sheet, but it has to be stated that the Tribunal is not MACA 503/2006 -:4:- expected to accept blindly a charge sheet filed by the police. Ext.X1 is the wound certificate relating to Binoy. There also in the wound certificate what is recorded is “the auto they were travelling hit a person and overturned”. So none of these documents would reveal about the involvement of two vehicles in this case. It only shows that one vehicle was involved and it capsized resulting in sustainament of injuries. It has to be remembered that Kishore is a person who is not having a valid license. PW1 had admitted that Binoy was driving the autorickshaw in which she was travelling is false. Therefore a total analysis of the evidence would show that something is fundamentally wrong with the claimants and they are attempting to project a case in order to get compensation from a vehicle which had valid insurance coverage driven by a driver, who was having valid driving license. I do not find any reason to interfere with the decision taken by the Tribunal. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-