IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1275 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.734/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- DEVASSY, S/O. MATHAI, AGED 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT POONACHIL HOUSE, MUTHAMKUZHI, PINDIMANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SRI.BRIJESH MOHAN SRI.SYAMJI RAM SMT.DHANYA CHANDRAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. SHAJI K.MATHEW, KURUKKOOR HOUSE, KIZHAKKE KUTHUKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY, BRANCH OFFICE, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1275 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed challenging the order of the MACT holding that injury sustained by the appellant was not on account of accident, but on account of accident in the worksite. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. The appellant's case is that while at work for construction of underground water tank for the Kerala Water Authority appellant was knocked down by a jeep which was moving in the reverse direction for turning. However, MACT relying on the statement of appellant's father came to the conclusion that the accident was not caused by motor vehicle but was a pure accident at work-site. Counsel for the insurance company produced records before us which contains an enquiry report by a retired Sub Inspector of Police engaged by the insurance company to conduct enquiry about the nature of accident. He has clearly stated 2 that on his enquiry it was found that the injury happened to the appellant when he fell down in the tank while he was moving with concrete on his head. Besides this report and statement of appellant's father, appellant's case is unbelievable because a vehicle will never be allowed to go so close to an underground water tank under construction. A jeep can knock down the appellant who is so close to the water tank under construction only if he was standing by the side of it. If a jeep is allowed to move so close to the tank under construction obviously the same is risk to the tank under construction itself. Thereforethe facts and circumstances and the evidence in the case clearly prove beyond doubt that the attempt is to convert an accident at work-site to a motor accident to claim compensation from the insurance company. However, appellant is certainly entitled to compensation from the Contractor who had employed him as the accident was in the course of employment. Appeal is dismissed leaving freedom to the appellant to file application before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner under the Workmen's Compensation Act 1923. Since the appellant was 3 misled to file this claim petition by his employer-owner of jeep, appellant is given two months time to file WCC for compensation and if any such application is filed the Commissioner will entertain the same as one filed in time and dispose of the same within three months from the date of filing of the application. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 4