IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1930 RP.No. 1200 of 2008(A) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.943/2006 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/APPELLANT: ------------------------------------------ VELU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, VALIPARAMBU, MUNDUR, PALAKKAD TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------- 1. CHANDRAN, S/O. KANDU, KODIYANKADU HOUSE, MUTTIKULANGARA, PALAKKAD. (DRIVER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922). 2. K.AYYAPPANKUTTY, S/O.M.K.MOOTHAN, 2/278, V.N.PURAM, KALPATHY, PALAKKAD. (R.C. OWNER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922). 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., M.A. LANE, T.B.ROAD, PALAKKAD. (INSURER OF AUTORICKSHAW KL-9/C-3922, POLICY NO.3176110160485, CERTIFICATE NO.50/37103 VALID FROM 23-11-1996 TO 22-11-1997). BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU & SRI.K.R.RAJKUMAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = R.P. 1200 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 943 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008. O R D E R This R.P. is filed to review the judgment dated 20th August, 2008 in MACA 943/06. It was an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)498/98. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials before it had dismissed the case on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence to prove the accident. I concurred with the said finding especially in view of the documentary materials available to show that the cause of accident was shown as a history of a fall. 2. Now, at this stage along with the R.P. the judgment of the criminal Court is produced. The very inception of the criminal case was doubted by the Tribunal on the ground that it was only a subsequent thought. A reading of the criminal judgment also would indicate that the claimant who wants compensation on account of a road accident turned hostile to the prosecution and deposed R.P. 1200 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 943 OF 2006 -:2:- before Court that he does not know the reason for the accident and even he cannot identify the accused. It is true that in the criminal prosecution one witness namely PW3 has spoken some thing about the accident. The criminal Court found the accused not guilty of the offences u/Ss.279, 337 and 338 Cr.P.C. and convicted for driving an auto rickshaw without a proper licence or so. It is a fundamental principle that a judgment of a criminal Court only has a persuasive effect on a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal or an appellate court. I have given detailed reasons in my judgment why I concur with the decision of the Tribunal. So I do not find any error apparent on the face of the record which requires review at my hands and therefore the R.P. is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-