IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1478 of 2007()
1. BIYATHU, W/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, CHOLERI,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ANVER BABU, S/O.HAMZA, VILAKKUMADATHIL
... Respondent
2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.T.V.NEEMA
For Respondent :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :12/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1478 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of November, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)299/00. It
is a case where the claimant is alleged to have sustained
injuries in a bus accident and the petition has been dismissed
with compensatory costs. It is against that decision, the
claimant has come in appeal.
2. There was a bus accident relating to KLL-4199 on
11.11.99. It appears to be true and correct in the light of
the earlier award passed by the Tribunal in O.P.(MV)300/00.
But the most important thing is whether the claimant
travelled in the bus and she sustained injuries in the
accident. The most important document namely the wound
certificate is not produced. The Tribunal had elaborately
discussed the documents produced. The case of the claimant
is that she had lost nine teeth and had sustained injuries on
the left knee. The Tribunal referred to Exts.A1 to A7
M.A.C.A. 1478 OF 2007
-:2:-
documents. The Tribunal found that even if Ext.A7 is looked
into it would show that she had consulted the dental surgeon
on 4.12.99 and 11.2.99, i.e. nine months prior to the
accident and on 11.2.99 this surgeon had recommended for
removal of 8 teeth. Now it is on the basis of an accident
which happened on 11.11.99 compensation is attempted to
be claimed. It is true that the M.V. Act, especially provisions
regarding the compensation, is a beneficial legislation
intended to confer benefit on the affected accidental victims.
But it cannot be a source for extracting money from a public
company like an insurance company. What prevented the
claimant from producing a document to show that she was
involved in the accident. If the wound certificate is not
available at least she could have brought papers from the
hospital where she was admitted immediately after the
accident. She could have summoned those certificates
before the Tribunal and established that she had sustained
injuries, even if it is an exaggerated claim. But what has
happened in this case is she produced some documents and
body scan which does not show any connection with the
accident. Therefore the Tribunal felt the whole thing is a
M.A.C.A. 1478 OF 2007
-:3:-
confusing one which cannot be relied on and dismissed the
case. It awarded compensatory costs also.
I feel in these types of cases there is responsibility cast
on the claimant and the persons in charge of the litigation to
produce proper materials before the Court or Tribunal and
convince the conscience of the Court regarding the
genuineness of the claim. When it is not done and the
Tribunal had dismissed the application, sitting in the
appellate stage this Court cannot simply brush aside that
award. Even an attempt is not made in this Court to produce
the wound certificate or the original of the treatment records.
Therefore I am not prepared to interfere with the decision
rendered by the Court below but taking into consideration
that a lady is alleged to have involved in the accident and
she had undergone a long period of litigation I am inclined to
vacate the order regarding the payment of compensatory
costs. With that modification the appeal stands dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-