IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1272 of 2005(C) ----------------------- OPMV.138/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- NAZEER, S/O. KOCHUNNY, ARACKAL HOUSE, CHETTIKUNNU ERAYAMKUDY P.O., KALLUR THEKKUMMURY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SMT.RESHMI POULOSE RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. SALIM, S/O. IBRAHIM, VENJANAPPILLY HOUSE, MAMBRA DESOM, ERYAMKUKDY P.O. KALLUR THEKKUMMURY VILLAGE. 2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KANNAN, KALLUMADAYIL HOUSE, KATHIKUDAM DESOM, KALLUR VADAKKUMMURY VILLAGE. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHALAKUDY BRANCH, CHALAKUDY P.O. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1272 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This is an application filed under Section 163-A of the M.V. Act for compensation. It is the case of the appellant that he was travelling in a bicycle and when it reached the place of accident a scooter driven by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the bicycle resulting in injuries to him. The first respondent denied the accident and the 3rd respondent also supported that contention. The Tribunal on an over all analysis of the materials held that the accident is not proved and therefore dismissed the claim. 2. Under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act there is no necessity to prove the factum of negligence. But there is necessity to prove the factum of accident and the involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal found that though the claimant and the first respondent belong to the very same locality and they know each other when the first information M.A.C.A. 1272 OF 2005 -:2:- statement was given the claimant did not divulge the name of the rider but only contends that he can be identified by seeing him. The police who conducted the investigation referred the case and it is further stated in the report that the vehicle KEH 9156 was not involved in an accident on 29.1.97. It is true that there is a mistake in that report to the effect that the rider's name is shown as Nazeer in stead of Salim. Nazeer is none other than the claimant and he has no case that he had driven such a vehicle. So it is only a mistake. In spite of refer report the claimant has not chosen to file any protest complaint also. It is also found by the Tribunal that the most crucial document namely the wound certificate was not produced at all before the Tribunal and only a medical certificate had been produced. The non- production of the wound certificate also throws suspicion in the matter and so the Tribunal found the accident is not proved and therefore non-suited the claimant. The three M.A.C.A. 1272 OF 2005 -:3:- reasonings rendered by the Tribunal appears to be proper and correct and therefore I hold that the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-