IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.P.BALACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 364 of 2003 ------------------------------------ OPMV.644/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: BINU @ VINOD S/O. KUNJAPPAN, KOTTAYILHOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN(JR.) SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. MOLLY JOY, W/O. JOY, AMIKKATTU KUDIYIL HOUSE, UDUMBANNOOR VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 2. SHIBU, S/O. CHAKKAPPAN, DO. DO. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SMT.P.A.REZIYA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ. --------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.364 of 2003 --------------------------------- JUDGMENT Koshy, J. The appellant/claimant sustained injuries during the course of his employment when a sheet of marble fell on his leg. He filed an application for compensation contending that on 1.1.1998 at about 9.30 p.m. while he was unloading the marble pieces from the lorry bearing Reg.No.KL-6/6971 at Udumbannoor, the second respondent, who was the driver of the lorry, moved it forward causing a piece of marble to fall on his leg. The Tribunal found that the alleged place of accident was in front of the house of one Kudiyil Chacko and it is not a public place and therefore, the motor accident claim will not lie. It was also found that in the wound certificate or in the hospital, there was no such a case that a lorry was involved in the accident. Before the doctor, his case was MACA 364/03 2 that a sheet of marble fell on his leg. The Tribunal considered the matter and held as follows: “Exhibit A1 is a copy of the wound certificate. The doctor was told that the petitioner sustained injuries when a sheet of marble fell on his leg. There was no whisper about involvement of a vehicle. Exhibit X1 is the case sheet maintained by the hospital in respect of the petitioner. In it, it is written that the petitioner sustained injuries when a sheet of marble fell on his leg. The doctor was examined as RW1. He has deposed that he wrote the cause of injury in Exhibit X1 at the time of the admission of the petitioner to the hospital. In his examination in chief the petitioner, who was examined as PW1, was asked whether he had told the doctor anything about the accident. The witness said that he was unconscious for three days. MACA 364/03 3 Exhibit X1 case sheet does not show that he was unconscious. The learned counsel further asked him whether he had told that he had sustained injuries when a sheet of marble had fallen on his leg. The answer was in the negative. It was suggested to him that he had sustained injuries when a piece of marble had fallen on his leg. Then the witness said that it was those who were with him told the doctor so. If he had been unconscious, he would not have heard it. I have no doubt that his testimony is not true. It is only an evidence of convenience.” A witness examined as PW2 is stated to be a co- worker. But, the statements of PWs 1 and 2 were contradictory. The Tribunal found that even if the accident has taken place in a public place, it is not proved that a lorry is involved in the accident. Hence, the application was dismissed. MACA 364/03 4 We see no ground to interfere with the award, as findings were entered on appreciation of evidence adduced in the case and we agree with the findings. The appeal is dismissed. (J.B.Koshy, Judge) 14th October, 2008 (K.P.Balachandran, Judge) tkv