IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR FRIDAY, THE 6TH MARCH 2009 / 15TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 335 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.6/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, KOTTAYAM,REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, THEKKEPODIMATTOTHIL,MUNDUPALAM PALA.P.O,KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. BIJU, PULICKAL HOUSE, MURIKUMPUZHA.PO, PALA. 3. M.DHARNAPPA GOWDA, K.K.SHENOY COMPOUND, DHARNAPATTOR DIST, KANARA SOUTH, KARNATAKA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR,J. =========================== M.A.C.A NO.335 OF 2009 =========================== Dated this the th 6th day of March,2009 JUDGMENT Third respondent Insurance Company in O.P. (MV)No.6/2006 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is the appellant. First respondent is the claimant. First respondent filed the O.P claiming that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident on 12.7.2005 at about 11 a.m at Mundupalam. His case is that he was walking along the side of Pala-Ramapuram road and while so motor cycle KA-21/E-4719 owned by the second respondent and driven by third respondent and insured with the appellant came along the road and knocked him down and the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the third respondent. Contending that he sustained serious injuries compensation was claimed. M.A.C.A.335/2009 2 Respondents 2 and 3 remained absent and were set ex parte. 2. Appellant filed a written statement disputing the accident as well as the claim. 3. The claimant was examined as PW1 and a witness was examined as PW2. Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimant and on the side of the respondents RW1 and RW2 were examined and Ext.X1 was also marked. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on the evidence found that the first respondent sustained injuries in the motor accident. Though it was contended that the injuries were sustained not in a motor accident but in a fall as disclosed by first respondent immediately after he sustained the injuries where he was examined by the doctor. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal relied on the evidence and found that it was sustained in the motor accident when he was knocked down by the motor cycle and third respondent was driving the motor cycle rashly and M.A.C.A.335/2009 3 negligently. A compensation of Rs.15,500/- was granted. It is challenged in this appeal. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant was heard. Learned counsel argued that when first respondent disclosed to the doctor that he sustained injuries in a fall, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was not justified in accepting the subsequent case that it was a motor accident. Learned counsel also argued that the delay in filing the F.I.R was not properly appreciated by the Tribunal and on the evidence it should have been found that first respondent sustained injuries not in a motor accident but in a fall. 5. On going through the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings. Though, when first respondent was taken to the doctor, it was stated that he sustained injury by fall, evidence of PW1 shows that he was knocked down and M.A.C.A.335/2009 4 the injuries were sustained. It could be that the injuries sustained was in the fall which caused when he was knocked down by the motor cycle. Therefore for that reason alone the findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal cannot be said to be illegal. 6. Ext.A1 the F.I.R, Ext.A2 the scene mahazar and Ext.A3 the AMVI report relied on by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal along with Ext.A4 discharge certificate establish that first respondent sustained injuries in the motor accident and not in a fall as claimed by the appellant. Therefore Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in finding that the first respondent sustained the injuries when he was knocked down by the motor cycle and the cause of accident was the negligent driving of the motor cycle by second respondent. 7. Then the only question is with regard to the quantum of compensation. Considering the M.A.C.A.335/2009 5 nature of the injuries sustained the compensation awarded is reasonable and I find no reason to interfere with the award. Appeal is dismissed. M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR JUDGE tpl/- M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. --------------------- W.P.(C).NO. /06 --------------------- JUDGMENT SEPTEMBER,2006