IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH JUNE 2008 / 28TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 594 of 2005() --------------------------------- OPMV.123/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: --------------------- DR. KAILASAM, SIVASADANAM, VELLARADA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP RESPONDENT: APPLICANT: ----------------------- V.S. JAYAKUMAR (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER K. SARASWATHI, VISWA BHAVAN, KARUMANOOR, PUTHENKADA, PARASSALA P.O. PARASSALA P.O. (MAJORITY RECORDED AS PER ORDER DT. 3.6.98 IN IA. NO.10-55/98.) BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER - R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.594 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)No.123 of 1994. The respondent in the claim petition is the appellant before this Court. A boy named V.S.Jayakumar sustained injuries in a road accident and it is contended by the claimant that it was on account of the hit by a vehicle driven by the respondent he has filed application for compensation. On the other hand, the appellant would contend that he does not own a vehicle as described and no accident had taken place as alleged and further that he was working in the hospital during the relevant point of time when the accident is alleged to have taken place. It is true that some confusions are made in this case and all types of contentions are raised. The court below has considered the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 . PWs 1 to 3 had deposed about the accident. It is to be stated that PW1 is the injured in the accident. He had deposed before court that while he was walking through the road a maruti Gypsi model jeep bearing Regn.No.KL-1-2222 came from the opposite MACA 594/2005 -:2:- direction, hit him and he sustained injuries. He had also filed a private complaint before the Judl. I Class Magistrate Court-II, Neyyattinkara. PW2 is an eye witness. He had specifically narrated the date, time and the manner in which the accident occurred. He had also stated that he is a native of that place and familiar with the respondent. PW3 also would depose that the car was driven at a higher speed. In some places it may appear that the car had hit him and in some other places it is stated that maruti jeep had hit him and in the wound certificate it is stated that the car or a lorry that had hit him. But there is a definite version that KL-1-2222 vehicle had hit on the claimant. Ext.A6 is a copy of the registration certificate issued by the Joint Regional Transport Officer, Parassala, wherein it is stated that the name of the registered owner of the vehicle KL- 1-2222 is Dr.S.Kailasam. Ext.B6 is the copy of the certificate of insurance wherein the period of insurance is from 16.6.1994 to 15.6.1995, which also states that the certificate is in the name of Dr.Kailasam. So the Tribunal held that a combined consideration of Ext.A6 and Ext.B6 would go to show that as on the date of the accident, the name of the owner of the said vehicle is the respondent. Ext.A6 alone is sufficient to prove that the contention of the respondent that the vehicle does not belong to him is not true. 2. It is a technical argument that has been canvassed by the appellant MACA 594/2005 -:3:- in this case to get out of the liability and I concur with the finding of the Tribunal that it was his vehicle that was involved in the accident. An attempt is made to demonstrate before court that at the relevant time of accident, the respondent was in the hospital by raising a plea that he was treating the patients at that time. It is attempted to be stated that he was examining the patient in between 10.30 a.m. and 12.30 p.m. in the hospital. A Doctor will not examine a person without records that too from a hospital. It is highly improbable that in the letter, it is stated that the respondent had visited the hospital in his own jeep and such a statement will not find a place in a letter of this nature. The Tribunal did not appreciate this type of document, that too I feel rightly and I therefore agree with the finding of the Tribunal regarding the fact that the accident had taken place on account of the involvement of the vehicle KL-1-2222 and the evidence of PWs. 1 to 3 purports the negligent aspect and that the appellant herein was driving the vehicle. 3. Lastly learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that he must be given an opportunity to implead the insurer of the vehicle. The accident had taken place as early as in 1993 and now a prayer to implead the insurance company after a period of 15 years cannot be entertained at any level. If there was a valid insurance coverage he could MACA 594/2005 -:4:- have contended it in the written statement and could have raised a plea regarding non-joinder of necessary parties at that junction itself. Therefore a belated prayer at this stage cannot be entertained. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he has filed an application to review the award with a petition to recall and cross examine PWs 1 and 2. I feel such a prayer also cannot be allowed after a period of 15 years from the date of accident. When all types of contentions are raised one must be vigilant in prosecuting the case properly. Therefore that prayer also cannot be entertained. 5.So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, I also find that the quantum awarded is only just and reasonable. Therefore I do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed. But I grant 3 months' time to the appellant to pay the amount. Considering the specific nature of the case, I reduce the interest rate from 12% to 9%. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-