IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 30TH OCTOBER 2008 / 8TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 286 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.128/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- MOHANAN, S/O. UNNI, MANALIPARAMBIL HOUSE, KARIMANOOR KARA, KARIMANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.V.GEORGE SMT.G.ROOPARANI SMT.LINDA GEORGE SRI.SAIBY JOSE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. BENNY THOMAS, CHOORAKATTU HOUSE, MUTOM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. SASI M.R., S/O. KUNJAN, MATHALIKUNNEL HOUSE, KODUVELY P.O., KODIKULAM, THODUPUZHA. 3. NATINAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 286/04 ORDER ON IA No. 822/04 IN MACA No.286/04 DISMISSED 30.10.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A No. 286 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 30th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 128/98. It is the case of the claimant that while he was walking an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No.KL7 C 7164 which came from the opposite direction knocked him down and he sustained injuries. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials did not accept the case of the claimant and dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company. This is a case where the first information statement is not given and the criminal law has not been set in motion. So the normal the course of conduct in a case of this nature is totally absent. Therefore one has to view and analyse the matter very carefully to accept what has happened. There was no difficulty for a person to make a complaint to the police. If the police refuses to register the same, there are methods to send the complaints to the MACA No. 286/04 2 higher authorities. There is also a provision in the enactments to prefer a private complaint so as to set the criminal law in motion. At least one would expect a basic document like the wound certificate to be prepared by the hospital authorities. These things are totally absent in this case. The Tribunal was also shocked when the claimant made a statement that it was his Advocate who gave him the information regarding the driver, owner and the insurer of the vehicle. For the first time something is stated about the alleged accident after five months. The Tribunal has correctly analysed and found it difficult to accept the contention of the claimant. Further, the Tribunal did have the opportunity to see PW1 and his demeanour. Therefore, the evidence cannot be simply brushed aside. I do not find any merit in the appeal. The appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 286/04 3