IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 388 of 2008(A) ----------------------------- OPMV.1518/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------------------- KUNJUMON.K., THUNDIL KIZHAKKEVILA VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA, THRIKKOVILVATTOM, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.PRATHEESH.P RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- 1. JOSE MON, THUNDIL KIZHAKKEVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, NADUVILAKKARA, KANNANALLOOR P.O., KOLLAM. 2. RAJAN, S/O.KUNJUKUNJU, KOOTTATHUVILA PADINJATTATHIL, AYATHIL, VADAKKEVILA, KOLLAM. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHINNAKKADA, KOLLAM. ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R1 & R2 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 388 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th 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, Kollam in O.P.(MV)1518/01. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling in a motorcycle driven by the 2nd respondent and due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent it dashed against a cycle as a result of which he fell down and sustained injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 did not contest the claim. The 3rd respondent by additional written statement contended that it was the claimant who had driven the vehicle and therefore the claim itself is not maintainable and it was on account of his negligence that the accident took place. 2. In the lower Court Exts.A1 to A9 ad PW1 were marked. After analyzing the materials the Tribunal felt that the case put up by the claimant is not true and dismissed the claim. It is true that the insurance company had taken a twin contention, one as a pillion rider and one as a rider. M.A.C.A. 388 OF 2008 -:2:- The Tribunal has got the responsibility to find it out and it is how the matter has been proceeded with. 3. At the out set I may like to point out that the owner of the vehicle is the brother of the claimant and the alleged rider is the employee of the brother. The accident took place on 18.12.00 and a private complain was filed on 13.1.01. It was referred u/s 156(3)Cr.P.C. A perusal of the wound certificate would show the history and the cause of injuries. “Sustained injuries on his right ankle when his motorcycle dashed against a cycle at Paravoor.” It is true that he had sustained injuries. It has to be remembered that when a motorcycle dashes against a cycle certainly the cycle and the cyclist would have also suffered damages and injuries. If the collision is on account of rash driving of the rider then naturally the rider may also sustain some injuries. But here is a case where the alleged rider nor the cyclist did sustain any injuries. It is in that backdrop we have to analyze the statement made in the wound certificate which indicates that his motorcycle dashed against the cycle. If M.A.C.A. 388 OF 2008 -:3:- really he was only a pillion rider there would not be any difficulty for him to give a statement before the authority and make a police case. He did not do anything and after almost 25 days files a private complaint to set the law in motion. The relationship between the parties is brother and employee of the brother of the claimant. So the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the probability is that the claimant was riding the vehicle and he had dashed on the cyclist. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-