IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 565 of 1999()
1. P.PRAKASH
... Petitioner
Vs
1. VISWANATHAN ACHARY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.B.SURESH KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :03/04/2007
O R D E R
M.F.A.No.565/99 1
K.Padmanabhan Nair, J.
- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
M.F.ANo. 565 of 1999-D
- - -- - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - --
Dated, this the 3rd day of April, 2007.
Judgment
Defeated petitioner in O.P.(MV) No. 1553 of 1993 on the file of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam is the appellant. Appeal is filed against the
award passed by the Tribunal dismissing the original petition filed by the petitioner
claiming compensation. The O.P was filed with the following allegations.
Petitioner was a pillion rider in a Motor Cycle bearing Registration No.KRQ
2026. When the vehicle reached the place of incident it hit against a bicycle and
the Motor cyclist lost his control and the appellant fell down and sustained injuries.
He claimed an amount of Rs.One Lakh as compensation. The owner cum driver of
the Motor Cycle did not contest . Insurer alone contested. It was contended that
no incident as alleged in the original petition took place and the petitioner himself
was riding the motor cycle at the time of accident. The petitioner was not having
a valid driving licence and hence subsequently the records were manipulated and
one Raju was made as a Driver. The Tribunal, after evidence, found that the
petitioner himself was riding the motor cycle and hence he is not entitled to get any
compensation. Ext.A5 is the wound certificate in respect of the petitioner. It
M.F.A.No.565/99 2
shows that the petitioner was examined at 9.45 a.m on 8-3-1993. Accident
occurred at 9.15 a.m on that day. The alleged cause of accident was stated in the
hospital as follows :-
If as a matter of fact, Raju was riding the motor cycle and the appellant was a
pillion rider, one would expect the appellant to state that fact. In addition to that
Ext.A1 is the F.I.R.registered against the appellant based on a statement given by
the cyclist. In the F.I.R what was stated was that the appellant was riding the
motor cycle. It is very pertinent to note that there is absolutely nothing on record
to show that Raju sustained any injuries in the accident. Considering all these
aspects, the Tribunal found that the case now projected is false and the petitioner
himself was riding the motor cycle and the accident occurred due to his
negligence. That is a finding of fact based on evidence. It does not call for
interference. Appeal is only to be dismissed.
In the result, appeal is dismissed.
K.Padmanabhan Nair,
Judge.
s.
M.F.A.No.565/99 3
K.Padmanabhan Nair, J.
M.F.A.No.565 of 1999-D
Judgment
3rd April, 2007.