IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2008 / 29TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 943 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.498/1998 of M.A.C.T., PALGHAT .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- VELU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VALIPARAMBU, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O. KANDU, KODIYANKADU HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. (DRIVER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922). 2. K.AYYAPPANKUTTY, S/O.M.K.MOOTHAN, 2/278, V.N.PURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. ( R.C. OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922). 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., M.A. LANE, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. (INSURER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922, POLICY NO.3176110160485, CERTIFICATE NO.50/37103 VALID FROM 23-11-1996 TO 22-11-1997). ADV.SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.S.MAMMU FOR R3 SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 943 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)498/98. It is the case of the appellant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a moped and when it reached at Panniyam Padam, an auto rickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL9C/3922 driven by the first respondent over took the moped suddenly turned without giving any signal and hit on the moped resulting in injuries to him. Respondents denied the averments and according to them it is a false case foisted by the petitioner to grab money from the insurance company. It is specifically pleaded that the auto rickshaw had never hit against the moped as alleged in the petition. The appellant has registered a case on the basis of a private complaint that too long after the incident. In the trial court PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. On an analysis of the materials the Tribunal did not accept the case of the claimant M.A.C.A. 943 OF 2006 -:2:- and dismissed the case. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that all necessary documents and evidence had been adduced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has erred in arriving at a decision that the claimant has not succeeded in proving the accident. The Tribunal found that the private complaint was filed long after two months from the alleged date of accident and as the case was referred u/s 156(3) CRPC the case was registered. It is seen that the scene mahazar is produced and it has been prepared on 30.9.97 whereas the accident had taken place on 17.7.97 and the place of occurrence was shown by none other than the claimant. Exts.A3(a) and (b) are the A.M.V.I. Reports prepared on 8.10.97. Iit is very strange to see that even after three months from the date of accident no repair is effected to the vehicle and some damages are seen noted in the A.M.V.I. Report. I feel these are all only on the basis of a later thinking. M.A.C.A. 943 OF 2006 -:3:- 3. The most crucial document in this case is Ext.A4 which is a discharge summary issued by Dr.Menon's Nursing Home, Olavakkode. Therefore it is seen that the claimant was treated as an inpatient from 17.7.97 to 19.7.97 and the history of the case is the history of a fall. If an auto rickshaw had hit on the moped in which the claimant was travelling and as even according to the claimant it was the moped rider who took him to the hospital, there was absolutely no difficulty to communicate to the doctor regarding the cause of accident. Surprisingly, even the involvement of the vehicle is not mentioned and everything comes to the limelight in the form of a road traffic accident by virtue of a private complaint which is filed long after two months from the date of the alleged accident. 4. Then the other document relied upon by the claimant is a disability certificate issued by a doctor from the District Hospital, Palakkad. There is nothing to show that this Doctor has treated him previously and admittedly there is no case that the claimant was treated as an inpatient in M.A.C.A. 943 OF 2006 -:4:- the District Hospital. So the mentioning of road traffic accident by the said doctor shall be only on the representation made by the claimant and one cannot attribute much credence to such a recital in that document which is prepared long long after the accident. So it was under these circumstances the Tribunal felt that the evidence is not sufficient to hold that the claimant had sustained injuries in a road accident. The rider of the moped has not been examined. A neighbour who has stated to have been taken him immediately after the accident was also not examined. Nothing is produced before the Tribunal to show that what is the outcome of the criminal case. These are all indications to show that all is not well and therefore the Tribunal was right in holding that the claim is not proved. In cases, I am conscious of the fact that it is not the volume of evidence that matters but it is the intrinsic reliability and inherent probability that has to be weighed. Immediately after the accident a person who did not suffer much and was absolutely conscious did not reveal the cause of accident but M.A.C.A. 943 OF 2006 -:5:- comes after a period of two months and claims to be a road traffic accident, I am not prepared to interfere with the reasonings and decision rendered by the Tribunal in this case and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-