IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JULY 2008 / 13TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 646 of 2003(B) ------------------------------ OPMV.42/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------- T.R.PUSHPAKARAN, THAZHATHARAYIL MATATHIL, UDAYANAPURAM P.O., ERUMBUZHIKKARA, VAIKOM. BY ADV. SMT.BETTY K.ALUKKA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ----------------------------------- 1. P.N.RAJAPPAN, PANTHALADIYIL, KOZHA, KURAVILANGADU 2. PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O. KUTTAN, ENAMPLAVILTHARA, ERUMBUZHIKKARA, VAIKOM. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R3 SRI.P.S.NANDANAN FOR R2 SRI.B.SABU FOR R2 SRI.SANTHOSH PETER (MAMALAYIL) FOR R2 SRI.P.N.ANOOP FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 646 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)42/97. The claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in an auto rickshaw accident but the Tribunal has dismissed his claim on the ground that the accident has not been proved and it is against that decision the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as insurance company. Immediately after the alleged accident which is said to have taken place on 17.10.96 he did not even go to a hospital. On 18.10.96 he visited the hospital and told the Doctor that the accident took place on account of a stationary cycle falling on his foot. Subsequently, at the time of discharge on 21.10.96 he wants to change the version and record it as an auto rickshaw accident. The fact that he does not visit the hospital immediately after the alleged incident itself creates M.A.C.A. 646 OF 2003 -:2:- suspicion. Secondly when he visits the hospital he gives a statement of his own stating that it is the fall of a stationary cycle falling on his foot that has caused the accident. Only on 21.10.96 before the discharge he wants to make a case by contending that it was an auto rickshaw that hit him. So the evidence produced by the claimant himself creates absolute suspicion in the mind of the Court. Further to crown all these things he does not even mount the box to give any evidence. That shows all is not well with his case and that is why the Tribunal has appreciated the matter in that line and dismissed the claim application. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said finding and therefore this MACA is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-