IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 7TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 16TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 772 of 2005(G) -------------------------------- OPMV.428/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : ------------------------------- SAJAN, S/O.JOHN, KUZHEKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, NEDIYASALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU. M.P RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS : --------------------------------------- 1. BIJU.P.C., PARAPPATTU HOUSE, PALAKUZHA, VIA THODUPUZHA. 2. JOHN, KUZHEKKATTUKUNNEL HOUSE, NEDIYASALA P.O., THODUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LIMITED, THODUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) - R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING : J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------- M.A. C.A No. 772 of 2005 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of November, 2008 J U D G M E N T J.B.KOSHY,J . Appellant/petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident on 2/11/2000. He claimed compensation contenting that he was a pillion rider of the motor cycle ridden by the first respondent. The vehicle was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured by the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company. The tribunal found that accident happened due to the negligent riding of the bike by the petitioner himself and he cannot be awarded any compensation as the accident occurred due to his own negligence. The tribunal relied on Exhibit B2 and testimony of RW2 to show that petitioner gave statement to the police that accident occurred while the petitioner was riding the vehicle. Exhibit B1, copy of wound certificate and Exhibit A5, discharge certificate would reveal the fact that the petitioner was conscious on the date of giving that statement. RW2 recorded Exhibit B2-statement. It is true that on the basis of protest complaint, case was registered against the first respondent. The M.A. C.A No. 772 / 2005 2 tribunal has relied on the evidence adduced before it. By examining doctor as well as the constable, it was established that petitioner gave statement after the accident that he was ridding the vehicle . It is true that the 3rd respondent has admitted insurance of the said vehicle, but the 3rd respondent is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent since the accident had happened due to the negligence of the petitioner himself and also since no insurance premium was paid for covering the pillion rider even if he is a pillion rider. Therefore, we are of the opinion that no interference is needed on the finding of facts entered by the tribunal. The appeal is therefore, dismissed. J.B.KOSHY,JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE scm