IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 22ND MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 518 of 2008() ------------------------------ OPMV.941/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- MATHEN KURIYAN, S/O. MATHEN, RESIDING AT THADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANEED VILLAGE, NECHOOR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK, ERNAKULAM DIST. BY ADV. MR.GEORGIE SIMON RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------ 1. EALIAS N.D., X/18, NADUPARAMBIL, PULIKKAMALY P.O., MULANTHURUTHY. 2. THAMPI, AGED 36 YEARS, S/O. VARKEY PAILY THOTTANIYIL HOUSE, RAMAMANGALAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, OPP. YTICA, CHITTOOR ROAD, KOCHI. R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 11th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV)No.941/2004. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding as a pillion rider in a scooter driven by his son-in-law, on account of the negligent driving of the son-in-law, the vehicle capsized resulting in injuries to him. The tribunal on a consideration of the materials had dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The learned counsel very persuasively submits before me that the approach made by the claims tribunal is not proper and it had not appreciated the documents produced before it and dismissed the claim petition on the basis of conjectures and surmises. According to him, though there was some delay in setting the law in motion thereafter everything has been done in order and the accused entered appearance before the criminal court, pleaded guilty and : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2008 therefore it will seal the fate of the case. 3. I am afraid that if such an attitude is taken in motor accidents claims cases, it may result in abuse of the process of court. It has to be stated that the claimant was travelling in a scooter driven by his son-in-law. The accident took place on 3.1.2000. It is submitted that he was taken to a local hospital and later referred to the Medical Trust Hospital. The hospital where he was taken first had not issued any wound certificate but a certificate dated 13.1.2000 is produced to show that he was involved in the accident. Thereafter he was treated in the Medical Trust Hospital at Ernakulam a very reputed hospital with specialty treatment. It has to be remembered that though it is alleged that he was admitted in the hospital on 3.1.2000 the wound certificate is prepared only on 4.2.2000. It is not known why the inordinate delay in preparing the wound certificate. It has to be remembered that this date assumes importance and significance for the reason that the claimant did not move the police authorities to register any case, but constrained to move the magistrate court for redressal of his : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2008 grievance and it was on 17.1.2000. The said complaint was not filed by the claimant but his son. So, a brother-in-law moved an application against another brother in law for registration of the case. It was done on 17.1.2000 and the wound certificate was prepared on 4.2.2000. Even the description in the documents in one place it is stated that while traveling in a scooter and in another place a fall from a scooter. Under what circumstances or who was responsible for the accident is seen no where in any of the documents. I am conscious of the fact that wound certificate is not an encyclopedia to contain all these particulars but under ordinary human course of conduct, there will be some mention as to the cause for the reason that there is a specific column in the form prescribed by the Government to incorporate it. Therefore it has to be remembered that initial documents are not all available and all the documents erupt after the filing of the private complaint which was referred under Section 156 (3) of the Cr.P.C. It is the settled principle that finding of a criminal court is not binding on a civil court. It can use its own wisdom to find out the truth in : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2008 the case. It is true that no claim petition can be thrown away on mere conjectures and surmises. But the conscience of the court also must satisfy what is projected is correct and true. Nobody initiated action for a period of 14 days. Later one initiated proceedings and thereafter the person alleged to have been responsible for the accident comes before the court and pleads guilty etc are really suspicious circumstances which really requires removal of doubt by the claimant. It is absent in this case. The court had examined and analysed the matter and was satisfied regarding the incorrectness of the claim or at least lack of evidence in the claim. For the said reasons, I do not intend to interfere with the decision which is based on factual foundation. So the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.No.518 OF 2008