IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 12TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 21ST KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1478 of 2007(G) ----------------------- OPMV.299/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------------------- BIYATHU, W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, CHOLERI, ANJANGAD HOUSE, VALILLAPUZHA POST, AREACODE VIA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.T.V.NEEMA RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. ANVER BABU, S/O.HAMZA, VILAKKUMADATHIL HOUSE, KARUVAMBRAM AMSOM AND DESOM, CHETTIYANGADI POST, MANJERI. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., JASEELA COMPLEX, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1478 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)299/00. It is a case where the claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in a bus accident and the petition has been dismissed with compensatory costs. It is against that decision, the claimant has come in appeal. 2. There was a bus accident relating to KLL-4199 on 11.11.99. It appears to be true and correct in the light of the earlier award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(MV)300/00. But the most important thing is whether the claimant travelled in the bus and she sustained injuries in the accident. The most important document namely the wound certificate is not produced. The Tribunal had elaborately discussed the documents produced. The case of the claimant is that she had lost nine teeth and had sustained injuries on the left knee. The Tribunal referred to Exts.A1 to A7 M.A.C.A. 1478 OF 2007 -:2:- documents. The Tribunal found that even if Ext.A7 is looked into it would show that she had consulted the dental surgeon on 4.12.99 and 11.2.99, i.e. nine months prior to the accident and on 11.2.99 this surgeon had recommended for removal of 8 teeth. Now it is on the basis of an accident which happened on 11.11.99 compensation is attempted to be claimed. It is true that the M.V. Act, especially provisions regarding the compensation, is a beneficial legislation intended to confer benefit on the affected accidental victims. But it cannot be a source for extracting money from a public company like an insurance company. What prevented the claimant from producing a document to show that she was involved in the accident. If the wound certificate is not available at least she could have brought papers from the hospital where she was admitted immediately after the accident. She could have summoned those certificates before the Tribunal and established that she had sustained injuries, even if it is an exaggerated claim. But what has happened in this case is she produced some documents and body scan which does not show any connection with the accident. Therefore the Tribunal felt the whole thing is a M.A.C.A. 1478 OF 2007 -:3:- confusing one which cannot be relied on and dismissed the case. It awarded compensatory costs also. I feel in these types of cases there is responsibility cast on the claimant and the persons in charge of the litigation to produce proper materials before the Court or Tribunal and convince the conscience of the Court regarding the genuineness of the claim. When it is not done and the Tribunal had dismissed the application, sitting in the appellate stage this Court cannot simply brush aside that award. Even an attempt is not made in this Court to produce the wound certificate or the original of the treatment records. Therefore I am not prepared to interfere with the decision rendered by the Court below but taking into consideration that a lady is alleged to have involved in the accident and she had undergone a long period of litigation I am inclined to vacate the order regarding the payment of compensatory costs. With that modification the appeal stands dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-