IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 1610 of 2004() ----------------------- OP.MV.8/2000 of M.A.C.T.,KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------- HARI PRAKASH, S/O.LATE HARIDAS KAIMAL, SREE HAREE HOUE, PEROOR KARA, PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.C.MADHAVAN, KOLLAM KOLLUMPURATH HOUSE, PEROOR KARA, PEROOR VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD., C.S.I. SQUARE, BAKER HILL, KOTTAYAM BRANCH, REP. BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, DIVISION OFFICE, KOTTAYAM, POLICE NO.570600/1999/6703865. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON 10/07/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1610 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. Appellant is the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal had dismissed the claim finding that the accident occurred not as alleged by the claimant. According to the appellant, he sustained injuries while a scooter hit on the bicycle on which he was riding. The first respondent is the owner cum driver of the scooter and the second respondent is the insurer of the scooter. The claim petition was disputed by the second respondent alleging that the claimant sustained injury due to fall from bicycle and the scooter had never hit on the bicycle of the appellant. The Police case with respect to the accident was registered only on the basis of a private complaint lodged by the appellant before the Magistrate Court. Admittedly there was no intimation to the Police from the Hospital and no FIR was registered on the basis of any such intimation. RWI is the Head Constable who investigated the case. He deposed before the Tribunal that the alleged history of the accident 2 noted in the accident register cum wound certificate at the Medical College Hospital is as "history of fall from bicycle at home". RW1 deposed before the Tribunal that he had questioned the Doctor who recorded the wound certificate and the Doctor told that he had noted the history as narrated by the patient himself. Ext.B1 is the statement of the Doctor, recorded by RW1 Head Constable. Further, when the claimant was examined before the Tribunal, he admitted that he has stated the cause of accident to the Doctor. In cross-examination he was not in a position to clearly narrate the details regarding the accident. It is admitted that the first respondent who is arrayed as the rider of the scooter is a neighbour of the claimant. 2. In the light of the abovesaid evidence and on other circumstances, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred not as narrated by the appellant and he had failed in proving the accident. Therefore dismissed claim petition. On an analysis of the evidence on 3 record and on perusal of the award of the Tribunal, we find no reason to interfere with the findings. Accordingly the appeal deserves no merit and the same is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms