IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1499 of 2006() --------------------------------- OPMV.1317/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- ARJUNAN PILLAI, S/O.DAMODARAN PILLAI, VIJAYA BHAVAN HOUSE, NEENDAPARAKARA, NERIAMANGALAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------- 1. DOMENIC SEBASTIAN, ATHIYALIL HOUSE, KOKKAVALAVU, VAGAMON, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. SAJI @ NANDAKUMAR, S/O.GOPALAN, VALOOMATTATHIL HOUSE, VIMALAGIRI KARA, UPPUTHODU VILLAGE, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, IDUKKI BRANCH. ADV. SRI.E.B.SHIVANANDAN FOR R2 SRI.V.GOPAKUMAR FOR R2 SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1499 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1317/2000. It is the case of the claimant that while he was walking along the road a jeep bearing Regn.No.KL-6/A 2730 driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner ran over his leg resulting in sustainment of injuries. It is seen that the first information statement was launched on 15.3.2000 and he was admitted in the hospital on 13.3.2000. In the wound certificate which is produced by the insurance company, viz., Ext.B2 it is stated in column No.9- history and alleged cause of injury “13.3.2000 2.00 P.M....................................................................................In the first information statement given on 15.3.2000, the case is that the jeep had ran over his leg and that there was one Geevarghese and Eldhose along with him. These two persons had been examined as Pws 2 and 3. The police on the basis of the first information report registered a crime, conducted investigation and filed a charge sheet against the accused and in response to MACA 1499/2006 -:2:- the charge the accused appeared before the court and pleaded guilty. So far as the criminal proceedings are concerned, everything is in order and it has ended in conviction. It is true that the finding of a criminal court may not be absolutely binding on a Tribunal or a civil court. But, at any rate, it is also a piece of evidence that has to be looked into while analysing the matter. This is a case where the delay in giving the first information statement was about 1 ½ days. The Tribunal relies on the entry in column 9 of the wound certificate as the absolute proof and arrived at a decision that this is a manipulated case. I feel certainly it is an entry which goes against the case of the claimant. But, one has to know and find out who has given such an entry and whether it was a mistaken statement and for that purpose evidence can be permitted to be adduced. While analysing the evidence of Pws 2 and 3, the court has to compartmentalize the facts into one with respect to the question(1) whether there is any inconsistency in their version regarding the accident(2)what are the inconsistencies, if any, in their version regarding negligence. Both are different. They cannot be clubbed together to arrive at a decision that the accident had not taken place. Therefore the matter requires total reconsideration and therefore I am inclined to give an opportunity to the parties to substantiate their respective contentions. MACA 1499/2006 -:3:- There was a delay of about 635 days in representing the appeal. Certainly for that period even if the claimant succeeds he will not be entitled to get any interest. From which date interest has to be given is also a matter which the Tribunal can consider depending upon the materials available and circumstances of the case. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and both parties are permitted to adduce evidence both documentary in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to have a re-look into the entire matter and decide the case in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.12.2008. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-