IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2322 of 2007(F) --------------------------------- OPMV.265/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THODUPUZHA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT : ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SUDHEER, S/O. HASSAN, CHUDUKATTIL HOUSE, NEYYASSERY BHAGOM, KARIMANNOOR, VIA. THODUPUZHA. 2. SAJEEL, S/O. EBRAHIM, NADACKAL HOUSE, PAZHOOR KARA BHAGOM, KARIMANNOOR, VIA. THODUPUZHA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 2322 of 2007(F) ORDER ON I.A.NO.3045 OF 2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2322 OF 2007 DISMISSED 31.10.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P..A TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007 --------------------------------- Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.265/2003. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-6/A-7073 driven by the first respondent, the vehicle overturned on account of the negligence of the rider resulting injuries to him. The Insurance Company would contend that the case of the petitioner is not correct and that it was the petitioner who was riding motorcycle at the time of the accident and further even if he was a pillion rider, it was an Act only policy. It is contended that he is not covered by the policy. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials confirmed that the accident had taken place and that the claimant was a pillion rider and therefore awarded compensation. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. At the out set it has to be stated that though the accident took place on 24.11.2000, the petition was filed only on February 2001. That is after a period of more than two months. It is true that immediately M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007 -2- after the accident he was taken to a hospital and the wound certificate would reveal that the cause of accident is fall from a bike. The doctor who had treated him was summoned before the Court and he had produced Ext. X1 and given evidence before the Tribunal. The doctor had clearly stated the reason for non preparation of the wound certificate was that “ He further submitted that the word used was fall from a bike and as it was a self accident, intimation was not given to the police. He has been cross examined and he would deposed that it is not reported in the wound certificate “ “ The evidence of the doctor and Ext. X1 has not been taken into consideration at all by the Tribunal and it acts upon the basis of the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The claim in his statement before the police would show that he did not file a complaint because the rider was his friend. But the same person chooses to file a complaint against the very same person after two months. So the explanation given for not filing the complaint in time cannot be accepted. If really there had been accident as alleged by the claimant, there would be materials to establish the same. The alleged driver M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007 -3- certainly if he had not sustain injuries would have taken him to the hospital. The evidence of the doctor would show that the information was furnished by the claimant himself. It is very easy to file a private complaint after a laps of so many months and prefer a claim before the Motor Accident Tribunal. The mere delay may not be ground to reject the claim of a person but there must be reasonable, acceptable and truthful explanation for the same. The explanation tendered is unsatisfactory. The proceedings in criminal case does not bind a Tribunal. There is no axe to grind for a doctor to come and depose against the claimant. The evidence of the doctor is entitled to weight and the surrounding circumstances also would establish that the case of the claimant is not acceptable as such. Therefore I disagree with the Tribunal and hold that the claimant had not succeeded in proving his claim and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed. If the Insurance Company has deposited the amount it is entitled to get it reimbursed from the Tribunal on appropriate application. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm