IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 2174 of 2009(B) ------------------------------ OPMV.141/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- M.C.BABY,S/O.CHACKO, MALIYECKAL,PULIYANNOOR KARA,PULIYANNOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL THALUK,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------ 1. A.M.BIJU,S/O.MATHAI, AATHOOPALLIL HOUSE,PULIYANOOR P.O., PULIYANNOOR KARA,PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL THALUK,KOTTAYAM. 2. SABU A.M., PARAVARUKUNNEL,PULIYANOOR P.O., PULIYANNOOR KARA,PULIYANOOR VILLAGE, MEENACHIL THALUK,KOTTAYAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER,PALA BRANCH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2174 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV)141/06. It is the case of the complainant that while he was riding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle due to rash and negligent driving of the bike by the first respondent he fell on the road and sustained injuries. The Tribunal did not entertain his plea. It has to be stated though the alleged accident has taken place on 13.11.2004. The law was set in motion one month after the alleged accident. In this case the insurance company has examined the Doctor who had treated the claimant on the first stage. Before the Doctor the claimant would depose that the cause of injury is as a result of a fall. There is absolutely no whisper regarding the involvement of a vehicle. The doctor has very specifically stated that when the person himself gives the statement it will not be recorded but when some other gives the statement it will be recorded. It is also M.A.C.A. 2174 OF 2009 -:2:- stated that the doctor emphatically has told the Court that the patient has informed him about the cause of injury. Therefore immediately after the accident when a person is examined by a doctor and a statement is made before Court it has to be given sanctity. The learned Tribunal had also referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court in this point and had turned down the plea of the claimant. I perfectly agree with the learned Tribunal and therefore I find no merit to entertain this appeal and hence it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-