IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2009 / 24TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1904 of 2008(S) ------------------------------------- OPMV.884/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ----------------------- SAITHU MUHAMMED 46 YEARS, S/O.MAITHEEN, NADUKUDIYIL HOUSE, VANNAPPURAM PO., VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SMT.P.P.STELLA SRI.BIJIMON C.CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS & ADDL. 4TH RESPONDENT ------------------------- 1. SUNIL P.R., S/O.RAGHU, PALACKATTU HOUSE VANNAPPURAM PO., VANNAPPURAM VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK, IDUKKI. 2. BENNY JOSEPH, KOCHUPURACKAL HOUSE, HOUSE 180, MULLAKKANAM PO., RAJAKKADU, IDUKKI. 3. MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTHAMANGALAM BRANCH, ELENJICKAL PLAZA, CHURCH VIEW JN., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM. 4. GANGA PRAKASHAN, W/O.PRAKASHAN, HOUSE NO.2/779, PALAKKATTU HOUSE, ELOOR KARA, ELOOR VILLAGE,PARAVUR TALUK, UDYOGAMANDAL. ADV. SRI.ELDHO PAUL FOR R4 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1904 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.884/2003. The claimant alleged that he had sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding a motor cycle. According to him when he reached the place of accident, a jeep came from the opposite direction hit on the motorcycle resulting in injuries to him. The 2nd respondent in the claim petition contended that he is not the owner of the jeep. The 3rd respondent raised a contention that the petitioner has no licence for riding the motor cycle. It is also contended that the 3rd respondent is not liable to compensate. It has specifically contended that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the claimant. The tribunal on a analysis of the materials dismissed the case. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that the finding of the tribunal is incorrect in the backdrop of the materials available in the case. A person who M.A.C.A. 1904/2008 -2- approaches the court for equity is expected to come forward with true facts. Those who seek equity must do equity and come to the court with clean hands. It is true that the provision regarding compensation in a motor accident case is a beneficial legislation intend to safeguard a victim who had sustained injuries in a road accident. But the court shall caution itself and that misplaced sympathy shall not result in injustice. With this in mind let me analyse the materials available before me. 3. The accident took place on 30.8.02 and the First Information Statement given by the claimant was recorded on 2.9.2002. It has been categorically stated in the F.I. Statement that he was riding as a pillion rider in a motorbike driven by one Mr. Benny. Subsequently this had been changed and he has become the driver of the motorbike. Specific sentence were put to him in cross examination and he had admitted about the same. He would further add that he had not informed the police that what is stated in Ext. A2 is wrong. When a specific question was put to him that having driven the vehicle without licence with an intention to claim compensation has falsely stated in Ext. A2, his answer was it may be. The tribunal commended upon this part of the claimant's M.A.C.A. 1904/2008 -3- evidence and held that his evidence cannot be given much weight. 4. The learned counsel very strongly contends before me that the absence of driving licence for the person who rides the vehicle cannot be a ground to find negligence on him unless it is proved that really he has been negligent. There cannot be any quarrel about that proposition. But it is always to be remembered that when a person without a licence to drive a vehicle is involved in accident the place of accident etc. may have to be taken into consideration. When one is not well versed in the art of riding the bike, one may not be able to handle a situation when one is confronted with a difficult situation that may cause an accident. So the experience as a rider will help such persons to come out of serious risks in that matter. It is astonishing to see that the claimant had taken a totally different stand to what is stated in F.I. Statement given by him. The learned counsel would contend that there is a road turning towards north at the place of the accident and so there is no necessity for him to take a 'U' turn at the place of the accident. The tribunal had extracted the damages sustained by the motorcycle and held that after reading the evidence of PW1, it leads to the inescapable conclusion that the accident took place M.A.C.A. 1904/2008 -4- when the motorcycle took a turn to the right. The tribunal also held that going east-north in a east-west road is as good as taking a 'U' turn. The tribunal had an opportunity to see the demenour of the witness and it had appreciated the matter. I do not want to find fault with it unless it is totally erroneous. As stated by me earlier here is a witness who had changed his whole stand in the case and it is in that background his evidence has to be analysed. The tribunal after considering the same had arrived at a decision and held that it was on account of his negligence that the accident took place. I do not want to deviate from the said finding and therefore I decline to interfere with the decision of the tribunal. Therefore the appeal is dismissed but under the circumstances without any order as to costs. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm