IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 21ST MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 76 of 2004() --------------------- OPMV.16/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- GOURIKUTTY AMMA W/O. APPUKUTTAN PILLAI, MANGALATHU PUTHEN VEEDU, KUREEPUZHA CHERRY, KAVANAD P.O., KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.B.SURESH KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MADHUSOODHANAN S/O. VASUDEVAN, VASUDEVA MANDIRAM, EZHUKONE. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN S/O. MANU, PUTHUSSERITHEKKATHIL, ADHINADU SOUTH, KARUNAGAPPALLY 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.S.SUDHEESHKAR FOR R2 SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.76 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 10th day of February, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. She claimed a compensation of Rs. 1,50,000/- from the respondents herein alleging that on November 7, 1994 at about 11.00 A.M. while she was walking along the western road margin of Kollam- Alappuzha National Highway towards north, she was knocked down by a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KRV-4424 driven by respondent No.2 herein. Resultantly, she sustained some injuries and got herself treated at Sanker's Hospital, Kollam as inpatient. According to the claimant, she was working as a coir worker at the relevant point of time and earning a monthly income of Rs. 2,000/-. 2. Respondent No.3, the Insurance company resisted the claim and contended that the accident did not take place on the day as alleged by the claimant. According to the Insurance company, the date of the accident was later manipulated by the claimant since the offending M.A.C.A.No.76/04 Page numbers vehicle did not have valid insurance coverage on the date of the accident. 3. The Tribunal after considering the rival contentions of the parties, found that the case put forth by the appellant/claimant cannot be believed. Accordingly, the claim petition was dismissed. 4. As mentioned earlier, the case of the appellant/claimant was that the accident took place at 11.00 A.M. on November 7, 1994. But admittedly, the police registered the crime in connection with the accident only on November 19, 1994 as is revealed from Ext.A1. Significantly in Ext.A1, the date of accident is mentioned as November 10, 1994. The police is seen to have prepared the scene mahazar only on November 30, 1994. But it is the case of the appellant that she did not report the matter to the police immediately after the accident since she was under the impression that the rider of the offending two wheeler might have reported the same to the police. It is true that Ext.A5, wound certificate produced by the appellant before the Tribunal will show that the Doctor had examined her on November 7, 1994. Even assuming that the appellant was under a mistaken M.A.C.A.No.76/04 Page numbers impression that the matter might have been reported by the driver of the offending vehicle or that the hospital authorities might have done so, the discrepancy in the date of accident mentioned even in Ext.A1 looms large. Ext.A1 will go to show that there was some deliberate attempt to manipulate the date of accident. 5. We are persuaded to take the above view for yet another significant reason . It is the specific case of the insurance company that as on November 10, 1994 the offending vehicle did not have a valid policy coverage. The Police officer has noted that the owner of the two wheeler in question had renewed the policy only with effect from November 24, 1994 for a period of one year though the policy had expired on November 8, 1994. It is in this context that we find that there is considerable force in the contention raised by the Insurance company that there was a clear attempt on the part of the claimant to change the date of the accident . According to the Insurance company, the accident had in fact taken place on November 10, 1994. 6. In our view the burden was very heavy on the appellant therefore to establish that the accident had in fact taken place on M.A.C.A.No.76/04 Page numbers November 7, 1994 as alleged by her. She had not bothered to examine any independent witness in the case . No other corroborative piece of evidence was also produced by the appellant . It is true that she has pressed into service Ext.A5 wound certificate. There must have been contemporaneous records in the hospital to show that she was in fact admitted in the hospital. No such documents were produced by the appellant. Taking an over all view of the entire facts and circumstances, we do not find any material illegality or irregularity in the view taken by the Tribunal. 7. Lastly it is contended by the learned counsel that even assuming the insurance company might not be liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, the Tribunal ought to have passed an award in favour of the appellant after assessing the compensation payable to her and making the owner liable to pay the same. But a perusal of Ext.A5 wound certificate will not give us any clue as to what were the injuries sustained by her. Of course there is some reference to certain injuries in Ext.A5 wound certificate. As mentioned by us earlier, no further evidence was adduced by the M.A.C.A.No.76/04 Page numbers appellant to show what was the nature of the injuries sustained by her. Ext.A5 will only indicate that she had sustained only contusions, abrasions etc. While she was examined in court, she had stated that she had lost two teeth apart from the abrasions, contusions etc. But even in this regard, the appellant had not bothered to adduce any further evidence as regards the injuries sustained by her. In that view of the matter, we are satisfied that the Tribunal did not commit any illegality in refusing to quantify the damages , if any, allegedly sustained by the appellant. Having perused the lower court records which were called for, we are totally satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. The appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. M.A.C.A.No.76/04 Page numbers