IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 646 of 2003()
1. T.R.PUSHPAKARAN, THAZHATHARAYIL
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.N.RAJAPPAN, PANTHALADIYIL, KOZHA,
... Respondent
2. PURUSHOTHAMAN S/O. KUTTAN,
3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KOTTAYAM.
For Petitioner :SMT.BETTY K.ALUKKA
For Respondent :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :04/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 646 OF 2003
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 4th day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)42/97. The
claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in an auto
rickshaw accident but the Tribunal has dismissed his claim on
the ground that the accident has not been proved and it is
against that decision the present appeal is preferred.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well
as insurance company. Immediately after the alleged
accident which is said to have taken place on 17.10.96 he did
not even go to a hospital. On 18.10.96 he visited the
hospital and told the Doctor that the accident took place on
account of a stationary cycle falling on his foot.
Subsequently, at the time of discharge on 21.10.96 he wants
to change the version and record it as an auto rickshaw
accident. The fact that he does not visit the hospital
immediately after the alleged incident itself creates
M.A.C.A. 646 OF 2003
-:2:-
suspicion. Secondly when he visits the hospital he gives a
statement of his own stating that it is the fall of a stationary
cycle falling on his foot that has caused the accident. Only
on 21.10.96 before the discharge he wants to make a case
by contending that it was an auto rickshaw that hit him. So
the evidence produced by the claimant himself creates
absolute suspicion in the mind of the Court. Further to
crown all these things he does not even mount the box to
give any evidence. That shows all is not well with his case
and that is why the Tribunal has appreciated the matter in
that line and dismissed the claim application. I do not find
any ground to interfere with the said finding and therefore
this MACA is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-