IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2010 / 21ST ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1510 of 2010() -------------------------------------- OPMV.1187/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT ------------------------------------------- SHINY, W/O. ANIL, AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT THAKARAPPILLIL HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA KARA, MANAKADU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEO PAUL SRI.SANU MATHEW SRI.C.R.PRAMOD SRI.S.ASHOK KUMAR. SRI.NOEL JOSEPH SRI.M.B.SANDEEP SRI.O.V.ANISH SRI.K.V.REJANISH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------ 1. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. PONNAPPAN, NADUKKUDIYIL HOUSE, ARIKKUZHA P.O., PARAKKADAVU. 2. M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1510 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)1187/05. The claimant, alleged to be a pedestrian has stated that she had been hit by a scooter ridden by the first respondent resulting in injuries to her. The claimant has sustained fracture. According to her the accident had taken place on 22.7.05. She got admitted in the hospital on 23.7.05 and thereafter had undergone treatment. The insurance company had disputed the accident itself. It would contend that it is a false case. The Tribunal held that when a person had sustained a serious injury like fracture one would not have waited for 24 hours to go to the hospital. The Tribunal also held that at the time of the first admission the cause of injury is said to be as a result of a fall. Only on 15.8.05 a case is M.A.C.A. 1510 OF 2010 -:2:- projected that she had been hit by a two wheeler. It is true that on the basis of the private complaint the Magistrate has referred the matter u/s 156(3) and the police after investigation filed a charge sheet and the accused in the case has pleaded guilty. So the criminal investigation and the result will point out regarding the road traffic accident in which the claimant had sustained injuries. But the Tribunal would state that the injury is not on account of the road traffic accident and the probability is that of a fall. Of course the learned Tribunal finds the delay in going for treatment. The different versions regarding the cause of injury etc. is the basis for arriving at that decision. Prima facie it may raise a suspicion. But mere suspicion cannot be a substitute for proof but when a suspicion arises it is the bounden duty of the claimant to discharge that suspicion. Now the learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me if an M.A.C.A. 1510 OF 2010 -:3:- opportunity is given he will be in a position to examine the doctor and other material witnesses to prove the factum of accident and involvement and sustainment of injury by the claimant in the accident. I am inclined to grant an opportunity. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.11.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-