IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 1180 of 2007(K)
1. K.O.SABU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C.M.MATHEW,
... Respondent
2. GEORGE THOMAS, S/O. A.T.GEORGE,
For Petitioner :SRI.JACOB P.ALEX
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :04/01/2008
O R D E R
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J
=======================
M.A.C.A.No.1180 of 2007
==========================
Dated this the 4th day of January, 2008
JUDGMENT
The first respondent in O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 on the file of
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, is the
appellant. This appeal is filed by the first respondent
challenging the award passed by the Tribunal by which the
appellant was directed to pay an amount of Rs.28,000/- as
compensation to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed O.P.(M.V).1155/98 before the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, claiming
compensation against the appellant and second respondent. It
was alleged that on 26.12.1996 at about 12 noon the petitioner
was walking along the Thiruvalla Pushpagiri Hospital road and at
that time a Motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 in which the
appellant was riding came in a rash or negligent manner and hit
against the petitioner and he sustained injuries. The second
respondent was impleaded as he was the registered owner of the
vehicle. The appellant filed a written statement contending that
his vehicle was not involved in the accident. The case of the first
M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007
2
respondent that on 26.12.1996 the motor cycle which the
appellant was riding hit against the person of the petitioner was
a false case. It was contended that on 20th December 1996 one
Chandran Pillai, Head Constable of the Thiruvalla Police Station
demanded money from the appellant. The appellant refused to
pay any money. Hence the Head constable became enemical
towards the appellant and falsely implicated him in this case. It
was averred that on 24.12.1996 the appellant went to Ranni and
came back to Thiruvalla only on 27.12.1996. It was further
averred that on 18.11.1997 the police constable Chandran Pillai
came to the house of the appellant and ask him to produce the
bike before the police station as the same was involved in an
accident. It was further averred that the appellant told that his
vehicle was not involved in an accident. Appellant made
enquiries and found out that he was falsely implicated in a
criminal case on 28.12.1998. The appellant filed a criminal
complaint before the Thiruvalla Police alleging that he was
falsely implicated in this case. No action was initiated and
appellant was never told as to what action the police had taken
M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007
3
in his petition. It was averred that a report was filed alleging
that appellant was punishable under Section 279,337 and 338
IPC and also under Section 134 of the Motor Vehicle Act. He
appeared before the criminal court and after the trial, court
found the appellant innocent and acquitted him. It was also
averred that on receipt of the notice from the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, the appellant appeared before the Tribunal and
filed a detailed statement disputing his liability. It was averred
that in the written statement it was specifically averred that the
appellant was falsely implicated in the case by Head constable
Chandran Pillai. It was further averred that in the O.P.(M.V.)
appellant filed I.A.970/2007 seeking permission to examine
himself as a witness and also the petitioner in order to bring the
true facts. That application was filed on 13.3.2007. Tribunal
dismissed that application on the same day. Thereafter the
appellant field I.A.1092/2007 to grant some time to challenge the
order passed in I.A.970/2007. That application was also
dismissed on the date on which it was filed and the Tribunal
found that the appellant was negligent and directed him to pay
M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007
4
compensation. Challenging that award this appeal is filed.
3. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant has
argued before me that the procedure adopted by the Tribunal is
illegal and without jurisdiction. It is argued that the wound
certificate was prepared at 12.45 on 26.12.1996. The allegation
was that the petitioner was knocked down by a scooter and not
by a motor bike. It is argued that the Tribunal went wrong in
fixing the liability of the appellant without giving an opportunity
to the appellant to cross examine the persons who produced the
documents. It is also argued that the vehicle of the appellant
was never involved in any accident.
4. The allegation of the petitioner was that he sustained
injuries at 12 noon of 26.12.1996. According to the petitioner
the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332 which the appellant
was riding came and hit against his person. Immediately after
the incident the victim was taken to Thiruvalla Hospital. The
petitioner informed Doctor that he was knocked down by a
scooter at 12.40.p.m. on 26.12.1996. It is also pointed out that
though the accident occurred on 26.12.1996, FIR was registered
M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007
5
after 9 days i.e. on 4.1.1997. Admittedly, the vehicle was
covered by a valid insurance. The specific case put forward by
the appellant was that motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLB-6332
was not involved in the accident. A criminal case was falsely
registered against him. A reading of the award passed by the
Tribunal shows that the Tribunal did not consider any of the
matters arising for consideration in its proper perspective.
Merely because the appellant produced motor cycle bearing
Reg.No.KLB-6332 before the police is not a ground to hold that
that was the vehicle which was involved in the accident.
According to the appellant a head constable of the police station
was on enemical terms towards him and at his instance the case
was registered against him after 9 days of the incident. Ext.A5
wound certificate shows that within 5 minutes time of the
accident victim was taken to the Pushpagiri hospital. Tribunal
went wrong in dismissing I.A.970/07 filed by the appellant
seeking permission to lead evidence. It went wrong in placing
reliance on the records without any proof. Ext.B1 judgment
produced by the appellant shows that before the criminal court
M.A.C.A.No.1180/2007
6
he raised a plea of alibie and that defence was accepted by the
criminal court. So I am of the view that it is only just and proper
that the Tribunal reconsider the whole issue after affording an
opportunity to the appellant and respondents to adduce further
evidence.
In the result the appeal is allowed. Award passed by the
Tribunal in O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 is hereby set aside and the case
is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal. The Tribunal is
directed to take O.P.(M.V).1155/1998 back to file and dispose the
same afresh in accordance with law after affording an
opportunity to both sides to amend the pleadings and adduce
evidence, if so advised. The parties shall appear before the
Tribunal on 15.02.2008.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE
dvs