IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 31ST OCTOBER 2008 / 9TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1578 of 2004(G) ------------------------------------------ OPMV.1946/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: K.M.SREEJESH, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O. K.M.RAGHAVAN, KOYITHATTA NAMBATTA HOUSE, ERANHOLI AMSOM, VADAKKUMPAD DESOM, THALASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJAGOPAL SRI.K.N.CHATHUKUTTY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. P.K.SANDHYA, W/O. N.K.RAMADAS, AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS, SANDHYA NIVAS, P.O. ERUVATTY. 2. N.K.RAMADAS, S/O. SANKARAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, NADUKANDY HOUSE, P.O. KUTHUPARAMBA. 3. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THALASSERY. 4. THE MANAGER, SAKTHI FINANCE LTD., KOZHIKODE BRANCH. ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1578 of 2004 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Balachandran, J. Appellant Sreejesh filed O.P.(MV)No.1946/98 claiming an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- by way of compensation from the respondents alleging that he sustained injuries while he was travelling as a passenger in jeep bearing Reg.No.KED 8889 at about 9 p.m. on 24.4.1998 from Sidhapura to Kuthuparamba when the jeep hit against the left side of the Meruvambayi Bridge on account of the negligent driving of the jeep by the second respondent. The Tribunal disbelieved his case and dismissed the claim petition and hence the appeal. 2. It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner that the Tribunal has not appreciated the evidence adduced in the case in the proper perspective and that on a proper evaluation of the evidence, the Tribunal MACA 1578/04 2 should have come to the conclusion that the case of the appellant that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident is true and compensation should have been awarded to him. 3. Appellant gave evidence before the Tribunal as PW1. His evidence was almost consistent with his allegations in the claim petition. According to PW1, he sustained injuries on his left knee when the left side of the jeep hit against the bridge. Exhibit A2 is the wound certificate recorded by the Doctor of Medical College Hospital, Kozhikode on 24.4.1998 itself. The history and alleged cause of injury recorded in Exhibit A2 is that while the appellant was travelling in the jeep sitting on its left side, a bus had over taken the jeep and consequently, it hit on the jeep and as a result, the appellant/petitioner had sustained injuries. The details of the injuries sustained by the appellant are recorded in Exhibit A2. The history and cause of injury stated in Exhibit A2 is MACA 1578/04 3 entirely different from the cause of injury stated in the petition and sworn to by PW1. 4. Exhibit A1 is the FIR registered three days after the occurrence, namely, on 27.4.1998. From Exhibit A2, it is seen that the police was informed about the road traffic accident from the hospital. Obviously, therefore, the cause of injury stated in Exhibit A2, as observed by the Tribunal, should be the reason for the cause of injury in Exhibit A1 FIR as well. The Tribunal observed that details of the other vehicle is not forthcoming. Further, it was the consistent case of the appellant that he was sitting on the left side of the jeep at the time of the alleged accident. If the bus was over taking the jeep through the wrong side, namely, the left side of the jeep, the one who is negligent is the driver of the bus. Similarly, if the version of PW1 is accepted, as observed by the Tribunal, it could only be due to the negligence of the appellant himself that he sustained injuries if his MACA 1578/04 4 left leg should hit against the bridge while travelling sitting on the left side of the jeep. Unless he was keeping his leg out side the jeep it could not have hit against the bridge. On the other hand, if the appellant himself was not negligent, he could have very well produced the inspection report of the jeep involved in the accident, which would have revealed the damages caused to the jeep on hitting against the barricade of the bridge. On the other hand, if at all it was the bus while over taking the jeep that hit against the left leg of the appellant, as observed by the Tribunal, negligence was with the bus driver. There is no reliable evidence in the case to show that the accident occurred either as stated by PW1 or as stated in Exhibit A2 and further, there is no iota of evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the jeep driver. The Tribunal has observed that the history and alleged cause of injury stated by PW1 to the Doctor of Medical MACA 1578/04 5 College Hospital, Kozhikode is correct. If that be so, obviously, the accident had occurred not on account of the negligence on the part of the jeep driver. It was consequent to the findings so entered into by the Tribunal, with which we also concur, that the claim petition was dismissed. We find no reason to take a different view to hold that the appellant should have been allowed compensation from respondents 1 to 3. This appeal, in the circumstances, is devoid of merit and is dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 31st October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv