IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 27TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 325 of 2009(G) ---------------------- OP(MV).854/2002 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: ------------------------- THOMAS.M.R., AGED 67 YEARS, S/O.ROCKY THOMAS, MATTAMMAL HOUSE, NEAR C.M.S. BUS STOP, CHERIYAKADAVU DESOM, KANNAMALY P.O., PALLURUTHY VILLAGE (PETITIONER IN OPMV.854/02). BY ADV. MR.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. ANTONY CHAKAPPAN, S/O.CHAKAPPAN, AGED 56 YEARS, VALIYAPARAMBIL VEETTIL, NEAR MUNDAMVELI, RAMESWARAM VILLAGE. 2. K.J.ROSILY, HOUSE NO.IX/1073, KUTTICKAL HOUSE, MANTHRA, KOCHI-2. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., EDATHIL BUILDING, THOPPUMPADY, KOCHI-5. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 16/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 325 of 2009 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of February, 2009 J U D G M E N T The claimant in O.P.(MV) 854 of 2002 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam is challenging the dismissal of the petition in this appeal. Appellant filed the petition contending that on 6.10.2001 at 5.00 p.m. while he was standing at Thoppumpady - Kannamali bus stop, autorikshaw, KDE-1357, driven by first respondent and owned by second respondent and insured with third respondent, came from west to east and due to the negligent driving knocked down the appellant causing serious injuries and he was treated at Medical Trust hospital for 14 days and therefore he is entitled to a compensation of Rs.40,000/-. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and the owner of the autorikshaw, remained exparte. Third respondent, insurance company, though admitted the insurance policy, denied the accident. It was contended that petitioner was not involved in any road accident and the injury, if any, sustained was not due to MACA.325/2009 2 the accident as claimed. No oral evidence was adduced before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. On his side Exts.A1 to A5 were marked. No evidence was adduced by respondents. Based on the evidence, learned Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal dismissed the application finding that Ext.A2, the certificate issued from Port Trust hospital, where petitioner was treated, does not establish that appellant sustained injury in any road accident and the fact that subsequently he was treated at Medical Trust hospital and a case was registered two months thereafter based on a private complaint filed by the appellant and Ext.A3, charge sheet, was submitted, do not establish that appellant sustained injury in a motor accident and therefore held that he is not entitled to the compensation. 3. Learned counsel appearing for appellant argued that when Ext.A3 charge sheet with Ext.A4 scene mahazar establish that appellant sustained injuries when the autorikshaw driven by first respondent rashly and negligently hit on the appellant, while he was standing on the side of the road, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the application. Learned counsel also pointed that the driver or the owner of the MACA.325/2009 3 autorikshaw did not dispute the accident. 4. On going through the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, I find no reason to interfere with the findings. Though learned counsel argued that as appellant was an employee of the Port Trust hospital, the fact that he sustained injury in a motor accident was not reported and so it is not shown in Ext.A2 and on that ground the Tribunal should not have found that there was no accident I cannot accept the submission. If in fact appellant sustained injury in a motor accident as claimed by him, definitely that fact would have been reported to the doctor, when he was treated at the Port Trust hospital. Apart from the submission that as he was treated at Port Trust hospital, the accident was not reported, there is no material to justify the omission to report the cause of the injury. The fact that two months subsequent to the incident appellant has filed a complaint based on which investigation was ordered and a charge sheet was filed, does not establish that there was a motor accident. 5. Inspite of the denial of the accident even the appellant was not examined. No other evidence was adduced apart from MACA.325/2009 4 Ext.A3 and A4 to prove the accident. Based on Ext.A3 and A4 alone the case of the appellant cannot be accepted. In such circumstances there is no reason to interfere with the order dismissing the application. Appeal is dismissed. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb