IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 MACA. No. 509 of 2004() -------------------------------- O.P(MV). NO.1314/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------------------------ ELDHOSE, S/O. YOHANNAN, AGED 26 YEARS, CHUNDACKATTU (OONAMBLY), PANICHAYAMKARA, ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE. BY ADVS. SRI. K. JAJU BABU SMT. A.S. BEENU RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. K.K. UNNITHAN, KOCHUBHAVAN, CHETTIKULANGARA. 2. SANTHOSH, S/O. SIVAN, OLAPPURA VEEDU, PANICHAYAMKARA, ASAMANNOOR, PERUMBAVOOR. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI. V.P.K. PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ln M.N. KRISHNAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A.No. 509 of 2004 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.1314 of 2000. The Tribunal dismissed the case of the claimant on the ground that he has not succeeded in proving that the incident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor bike ridden by the second respondent due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, the motor bike met with an accident resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal found that the wound certificate indicated that it was the self accident which was caused by the skidding of the motor cycle and that the claimant himself was riding on the vehicle at the time of the accident. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously contends before me that immediately after the accident when the claimant was admitted in the hospital, he was in a drowsy condition and therefore, the court shall not rely on that version. The learned counsel would also contend that the police after due investigation has filed charge sheet against the MACA 509/04 2 second respondent and the second respondent, on receipt of summons, has appeared before the court and pleaded guilty and therefore, it is proved that the second respondent is responsible for the accident. 3. Motor accident claims cases are now largely increasing and I find foisted cases as well. I do not want to elaborate on that aspect, but it has to be stated that the first version after accident will be more truthful than the subsequent development. Therefore, the statement in Ext.A5 wound certificate has some basic value. But it can be proved that it was made by the person who was not conscious. Then certainly it would have its own disadvantages as well. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the claimant to adduce further evidence in the matter. I has also to be stated that now in the light of the recent decisions on the pillion rider, the court has to consider whether the pillion rider in this particular case is also covered by the policy issued by the Insurance Company. 4. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to grant opportunities to all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions, including the question of the liability of the Insurance Company, even if it is proved that the claimant was a pillion rider. Since the rider and the owner have not appeared before the court MACA 509/04 3 below or before this Court, the claimant shall take out notice to them also for the reason that if ultimately the claimant succeeds and Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability, it will fall upon them. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 9-11-2009. This appeal is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mn.