IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 27TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 5TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 691 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.144/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3: -------------------------------------------------- M/S. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PATTAM BUILDINGS, R.S. ROAD, ALWAYE, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, METRO PALACE, REGIONAL OFFICE, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.MAMMU S. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAJESH, SON OF GANGADHARAN, PADAYATTIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY,CHENGAMANAD. 2. KRISHNADAS, S/O. DIVAKARAN, KATHANAPARAMBIL HOUSE, POKKUTTUSSERY,NEDUMBASSERY. 3. RENU. E.V., ERITTIYIL HOUSE, KURUMASSERY. R1 BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J U D G M E N T No representation. Inspite of repeated chances, steps are not being taken. The appeal is dismissed for default. 27/09/2010 Sd/- M.N.Krishnan, Judge /True Copy/ P.A.to Judge kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 691 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P. (MV)144/01. The claimant, alleged to be a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.35,100/- with 9% interest. The insurance company has raised the contention that it was the claimant himself who was riding the bike under the influence of alcohol and therefore the company is not liable to pay the amount. Suppose the claimant himself was riding the bike then it is a case of his own negligence and therefore an application u/s 166 of the M.V.Act cannot be entertained. 2. Now the insurance company has brought to the notice the following facts for consideration of the M.A.C.A. 691 OF 2006 -:2:- Court. Immediately after the accident the claimant was taken to the hospital and it is recorded in the wound certificate as stated by the people and it is specifically stated therein that while he was riding the bike it skid and resulted in the fall causing injuries to the claimant. This was carried in the discharge summary which was issued to the claimant later. There also it is very clearly stated that the claimant was the rider of the bike. Then it has to be stated that a private complaint was filed after 75 days on the basis of which a reference u/s 156 (3) Cr.P.C. was made and a charge sheet was filed against another person for riding the bike negligently. 3. Now when the claimant faced these serious consequences, in order to get over the difficulty PW2 was examined. PW2 would depose that while he was coming along the road he saw a man lying down on the road with a bike near him and therefore he removed M.A.C.A. 691 OF 2006 -:3:- him to the hospital and gave the statement of the nature mentioned in the wound certificate. In order to explain the said difficulty he would add that the person who had ridden the motorcycle came behind in an auto rickshaw and before that he had given the statement. Now, 'men may lie but circumstances will never lie'. When an accident takes place with one person riding and the other person occupying it as a pillion rider it is only due to the speed or the inability to stop the vehicle as they want, the vehicle skids and turns down. When it is so, naturally there must be some injury for the person who was riding the vehicle as well, at least an abrasion. What happens in this case is, if the story is to be believed that when one person falls down, the other person goes away to a distance to get an auto rickshaw. Normally the human conduct is the anxiety to see that somebody is there near the person who is injured and M.A.C.A. 691 OF 2006 -:4:- thereafter make arrangements to take him to the hospital. So the story that he had gone to fetch an auto rickshaw cannot be believed. Then if really a mistake had taken place on the part of the person who had given the information certainly there would have been a correction immediately. They would have registered a case by getting statement of the person. Nothing is done for 2 and ½ months and thereafter a case is filed in the form of a private complaint. So I am confident that all is not well with the case of the claimant at all. The case appears to be more probable as is originally revealed from the wound certificate because it is the first place where the statement is made immediately after the accident. Therefore I am inclined to hold that the claimant has sustained injuries in a road accident while he himself was riding the motorcycle and since the application is filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act he is not M.A.C.A. 691 OF 2006 -:5:- entitled to get any compensation. Therefore the M.A.C.A. is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and O.P.(MV)144/01 is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-