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 23RD SEPTEMBER 2008 / 1ST ASWINA 1930 MFA.No.452 of 2003 ------------------------ OP(MV).896/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT BEFORE TRIBUNAL -------------------------------------------------- MR.BABY, AGED 45, S/O.AVIRAH, CHARALEL HOUSE, KOCHUTHOVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.V.GOPAKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. PRASANNA, @ SAJIMON, KALKATTIL HOUSE, ANAKUTHY BHAGOM, KOCHUTHOVALA P.O., KATTAPPANA VILLAGE. 2. JACOB VARKEY, NEDUMPARAMBIL, THAZHATHUKOICKAL, EZHUMATTOOR P.O., MALLAPPALLY VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, TRIO CHAMBERS, KANJIKUZHY, KOTTAYAM - 4. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J. B. KOSHY & K. P. BALACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 23rd day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Balachandran, J This is appeal filed by the claimant in O.P(MV)896/98 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha assailing the dismissal of the application filed by him under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. According to the appellant, on 04/10/98 at about 6.00 p.m while he was walking along the road to Puliyanmala he was knocked down by jeep bearing registration No.KL-5A-3874 causing serious injuries to him; that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the first respondent who was its driver; that the second respondent is its owner and the third respondent is the Insurance Company which has insured the said M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -2- jeep. He claimed a total compensation of Rs.1,29,884/-. 2. The third respondent/Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that it is not a case of motor accident; that the jeep bearing registration No.KL-5A-3874 insured by them was not involved in any accident and that the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. 3. The Tribunal which considered the case in the light of the evidence adduced, came to the conclusion that the appellant/claimant failed to establish that he sustained injuries in a motor accident and consequently, dismissed the petition with cost to the third respondent. 4. It is contended before us by the learned counsel for the appellant that the evidence on record will show on a proper M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -3- evaluation that the case alleged is true and genuine and that the appellant has in fact sustained the alleged injury in the motor accident alleged. 5. As observed by the Tribunal apart from the interested testimony of the petitioner as PW1, there was only an evidence of PW2 to support the case of the accident alleged. According to PW1, the accident occurred on the Kattappana road while he was walking along its eastern side and the jeep was coming from the opposite direction. He gave Ext.A6 F.I. statement only on 12/11/1998, after one month of the alleged occurrence. His case was that the jeep was coming from Kattappana. The Tribunal observed that in view of the above statements there cannot be any doubt that the specific case of the appellant is that the jeep was coming from Kattappana. The accident M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -4- took place near Bobby Medical Shop at Puliyanmala. Ext.A7 Scene Mahazar showed that Bobby Medical Shop is on the Munnar-Kumili road and not at Puliyanmala. Though Ext.A9 Final Report has been filed by the police charge sheeting the driver of the jeep for offence under Sections 279 and 337 of the IPC in the said Final Report also the allegation is that the accident occurred on the Munnar- Kumili road. It is not disputed that Munnar- Kumili road and Kattappana road are not one and the same; and that Kattappana road lies east-west and Munnar-Kumili road lies North- South; and that Kattappana road joins the Munnar-Kumili road and that the junction is Puliyanmala junction as observed by the Tribunal. But as per Ext.A7 Mahazar place of occurrence was 25 metres South of that junction. That means, the accident has M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -5- occurred on the Munnar-Kumili road and for that there was no confusion. According to PW1, he was walking along the right side of the Kattappana road towards Puliyanmala namely along the Southern side of the Kattappana road. But in chief examination he stated that he was walking along the eastern side of the road. 6. According to PW2 who is alleged to have witnessed the occurrence, the appellant was walking along the northern side of the road when the accident took place. PW2 is one who is residing 5 kilometres away from the scene of occurrence. The Tribunal also observed that in Ext.A6 F.I. statement the appellant has told the police that it was in the jeep involved in the accident that he was taken to hospital, but according to PW2 who claims to have witnessed the occurrence and M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -6- has taken the appellant to hospital, he was taking the appellant to hospital in a taxi jeep got down from Puliyanmala taxi stand. Such glaring inconsistencies in the evidence was rightly found by the Tribunal as suggestive of a false case set up by the appellant. 7. The Tribunal also observed that according to the appellant who gave evidence as PW1 it was the over speed of the jeep and the negligence of the driver that has caused the accident. But Ext.A1 copy of wound certificate showed that the only injury sustained by him was a contusion on his scrotum with an injury on the urethral organ measuring 2 x 5 cms. If the jeep was coming in a reckless speed and it hit the appellant it would cause other allied associated injuries also and even the injuries stated would have M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -7- resulted in extensive damage. The nature of the injury as rightly observed by the Tribunal does not justify his case that he sustained injuries as alleged when he was hit by the jeep coming at excessive speed from the opposite direction. 8. It is worthy to note that if at all the appellant had complained to the Doctor that the injury was caused to him in a motor vehicle accident the Doctor would have certainly informed the matter to the Police. No such instance of reporting to police has taken place only because the injury was not being caused to the appellant as alleged. In the above circumstances, the Tribunal disbelieved the case of the appellant and dismissed the application for compensation. The finding entered into by the Tribunal that no accident has taken place as alleged cannot M. F. A. No.452 of 2003 -8- be faulted and no different conclusion also can be arrived at in the light of the evidence discussed above. Hence, confirming the dismissal of O.P.(MV).896/98, we dismiss this appeal. J. B. KOSHY JUDGE K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JUDGE kns/-