IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 2177 of 2006(B) ----------------------- OPMV.33/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MUHAMMED BIJILI, S/O.HASSAN PILLAI, KINATTUMOOTTIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA KARA, ERATTUPETTA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.HARIHARAPUTHRAN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS : ----------------------------------------- 1. HABEEB LATHEEF, S/O.LATHEEF, MULAKKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, THEKKEKARA KARA, ERATTUPETTA. 2. REJI MATHEW, VALLIKKAVIL HOUSE, ARUVITHURA P.O., ERATTUPETTA. 3. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., MADAPARAMBIL CHAMBERS, M.C.ROAD, MOOVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2177 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)33/02. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in an auto rickshaw it met with an accident resulting in injuries to him and it is further averred that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the auto rickshaw driver. The learned Tribunal had elaborately considered the materials. The Tribunal found inconsistency galore in the evidence of PW1 and coupled with the non-production of the discharge summary or wound certificate and the delayed approach to set the criminal law in motion made the Tribunal feel that all is not well with the case and therefore rejected the case. The Tribunal had elaborately discussed the evidence and even the date of admission and discharge is not properly stated in the chief affidavit. Though he would contend that he alone was travelling as a passenger in the auto rickshaw M.A.C.A. 2177 OF 2006 -:2:- when he moved the petition before the Magistrate Court he had incorporated another person as well and the Tribunal observed the petitioner's case is inconsistent and inconsistency is the hall-mark of untruth. This was also observed by the Tribunal that according to him after the accident he was taken in a motor van by an unknown stranger to the hospital but now he had changed it and given the name of one person namely Nazir. But no such averments are there in the petition filed before the Magistrate Court within a period of three weeks from the accident. The Court also found that he had stated before the Magistrate Court to the effect that he wanted to see one Martin but it is also given a go bye. Therefore the Court held that inconsistency of the evidence, failure to lodge complaint before the police and the non-availability of the medical records puts the petitioner's case in a quandary. Therefore the Court came to a conclusion that the case is not proved. Inconsistency or exaggerations or embellishments are part and parcel of an evidence of a witness but the total M.A.C.A. 2177 OF 2006 -:3:- contradictions and total inconsistency and even not able to show bear minimum truthfulness would lead to the conclusion that one is not speaking truth. So I agree with the learned Tribunal to hold that there is no evidence to prove the case. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-