IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 155 of 2006(D) ------------------------------- OPMV.1751/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONERS ---------------------------------- ANI O.T. @ ANILKUMAR, S/O.THANKAPPAN, AGED 33, RESIDING AT OONNUKALLEL HOUSE, KUNINJI KARA, PURAPPUZHA VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI RESPONDENT(S): RSPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. PURUSHOTHAMAN, S/O.KUMARI, PARAYANKAL HOUSE, VELIYANOOR P.O., THAMARAKKAL, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. RAJAPPAN O.T. @ RAJAN, S/O.THANKAPPAN, OONUKALLEL HOUSE, KOOTHATTUKULAM P.O., PERUMKUTTY KARA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.8, JYOTHI SUPER BAZAR, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.SYAMJI RAM FOR R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 155 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th 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) 1751/01. The claimant is alleged to be a pillion rider in a bike driven by his brother. The first respondent in the claim petition sustained injuries in a road accident. The Tribunal after consideration of the entire materials dismissed the claim petition and it is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. In a case u/s 166 of the M.V.Act it is the duty of the claimant to establish the involvement and injuries sustained in the accident. It is true that the vehicle was involved in an accident and the claimant sustained injuries in an accident. But the disputed fact is whether he was riding the motorcycle or was travelling as a pillion rider. If it was ridden by him, as the accident had taken place on account of the hit by a buffalo, who ever rides had to put the blame on M.A.C.A. 155 OF 2006 -:2:- himself and thereby has to be deprived of the compensation. So in this background the matter has to be analysed. 3. The accident took place on 1.8.01 and the matter was reported on 2.8.01. When he was admitted in the hospital on 1.8.01 what he has stated before the hospital authorities regarding the injury is a fall from a two wheeler after a hit against a buffalo. It is never mentioned in the document that somebody else was riding and he was only a pillion rider. I am conscious of the fact a wound certificate or a first information statement cannot be an encyclopedia of all the materials relating to a case. It is interesting to note in this case that the insurance company deputed its investigator and he has recorded the statements of RW1 and RW2. RW1 is a person who was conducting a workshop just opposite to the place of accident and RW2 is a worker there. Before the investigator both of them gave statements to the effect that the vehicle was driven by the petitioner herein. This statement was put to RW1 and RW2. According to them they have admitted the signature therein and also the M.A.C.A. 155 OF 2006 -:3:- contentions therein. Since it was not marked in evidence I got the statement from the counsel for the insurance company and verified to satisfy myself whether such statements are given by these persons before the investigator. A perusal of those statements would reveal that such a statement is given to the effect that it was the claimant who was riding the motor bike. It is true that unfortunately at the time of evidence of RW1 and RW2, they have attempted to detract from what they have stated. But when they were confronted with the statement they had stated that such statements had been given admitting that they had put their signature to the statements recorded by the investigator. Therefore the statements available would reveal the case that these persons had seen the claimant riding the motor bike. This is one piece of evidence. But the burden is always on the claimant to establish the factor. The claimant even did not dare to mount the box to give evidence in support of the contention that he was only a pillion rider. He did not adduce any evidence as well to M.A.C.A. 155 OF 2006 -:4:- prove that his brother was riding the vehicle at that point of time. So it was in these circumstances the Tribunal analysed the materials available before it and came to the conclusion that it was the claimant who had driven the vehicle and further it also held that it was not on account of the negligence of the rider, if it is somebody else that the accident took place. I do not find any materials to disturb the finding of the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-