IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH MAY 2010 / 27TH VAISAKHA 1932 MACA.No. 684 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.1337/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- KUNHIKOYA, S/O.MOYIN, PALATHINGAL HOUSE, VALUVANGAD POST, THARIPPADI, PANDIKKAD VIAS, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.JOHN NUMPELI (JUNIOR), SRI.P.V.PAULSON. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDU, AGED 46, S/O. UNNIMMED, CHAKKALAKUNNAN HOUSE, PAYYAPPARAMBU, PANDIKKAD POST, ERNADU TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED., BRANCH OFFICE, VARIKKODAN BUILDING, NILAMBUR ROAD, MANJERI POST - 676 121. R1 BY ADV.SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR R2 BY ADV.SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.684 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in OP(MV)No.1337/2003. The claimant, a pillion rider to a two wheeler, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.27,450/= with 7% interest. It had cast the liability on the owner cum driver and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on account of an act only policy. 2. The serious question to be considered is whether the claimant has succeeded in proving that he has sustained injuries in an accident. The appellant had denied the very accident. The documents produced are only the FIR, the wound certificate and other documents. When there is specific denial of the incident itself and when it is supported by a judgment of a criminal court which shows that the Court has disbelieved the defacto complainant therein, the matter requires consideration. I am conscious of the fact that judgment of a criminal court is not binding on the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.684 OF 2010 Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. It is equally to be remembered that the parameters for determining the criminal negligence and civil negligence are also different. But there must be some evidence tendered to prove the incident and to satisfy the conscience of the court. Neither the claimant nor the owner cum driver did adduce any evidence in that regard. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. 3. So far as the insurance company is concerned, admittedly it is only an act only policy. Going by the dictum laid down in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh (2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC), the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. So, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company to be exonerated from the liability is only to be affirmed and I do so. But regarding the accident and the quantum, the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. 4. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to permit the claimant as well as the owner : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.684 OF 2010 cum driver to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to enter a finding on the question of negligence as well as the quantum. Exoneration of liability of the insurance company is affirmed and it does not require further consideration. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1.7.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.684 OF 2010