IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 343 of 2003()
1. C.P. SSEBASTIAN @ SUNNY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MRS. REMADEVI, W/O. BALACHANDRAN,
... Respondent
2. MR. THANKACHAN, S/O. CHACKO,
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SMT.BETTY K.ALUKKA
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN
Dated :24/09/2008
O R D E R
J.B.Koshy & K.P.Balachandran, JJ.
---------------------------------
M.A.C.A.No.343 of 2003
---------------------------------
JUDGMENT
Balachandran, J.
The petitioner in O.P.(MV)No.2059/92 on the
file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Kottayam is the appellant. He filed an application
claiming a total compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- on
account of the injuries caused to him in a motor
accident. The Tribunal, considering the evidence in
the case, came to the conclusion that the case of
the appellant that he sustained injuries in a motor
accident, as alleged, is not proved and
consequently dismissed the claim petition. Hence
this appeal.
2. It is contended before us by the learned
counsel for the appellant that the Tribunal should
have, on a proper evaluation of the entire evidence
in the case, found that the accident alleged is
true and should have allowed compensation for the
MACA 343/03 2
injuries sustained to the appellant.
3. It is the case of the appellant/petitioner
that at about 1 p.m. on 16.7.1992, while he was
riding his scooter bearing Reg.No.KEK 8004, an
autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-5/A 4847, owned by
the first respondent and driven by the second
respondent, knocked him down and he sustained
injuries and became unconscious; that he was
treated in the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam;
that the accident occurred solely due to the
negligence of the second respondent, who was
driving the autorickshaw; that the third respondent
is the insurer of the autorickshaw and that all the
respondents are liable for the compensation
claimed.
4. The third respondent resisted the claim
contending that the allegation that the accident
occurred when the autorickshaw hit the scooter is
false and that the autorickshaw was not at all
involved in the alleged incident. They further
MACA 343/03 3
contended that there is collusion between the
appellant and respondents 1 and 2 in advancing the
claim as against them, who have insured the
autorickshaw. According to them, the incident took
place when the scooter had a skid on the road while
the appellant was riding the scooter under the
influence of alcohol and then there was rain also.
5. The appellant gave evidence as PW1 and he
also examined PW2 to speak to the occurrence.
According to PW1, the autorickshaw which came from
the opposite side knocked him down while he was
riding the scooter and immediately he became
unconscious and regained consciousness only after
eight days. According to PW2, he witnessed the
occurrence; that PW1 was riding the scooter at slow
speed and the autorickshaw driven negligently by
the second respondent was knocking down the scooter
and PW1 was taken in the same autorickshaw to the
Medical College Hospital. However, he admitted in
cross-examination that PW1 is his close friend. He
MACA 343/03 4
also stated that his house is situated 3=
kilometres away from the place of incident and
stated further that while he was returning after
the second show, he happened to witness the
incident. He further testified that after the
incident he went to the residence of PW1 and
informed his wife about the incident on the same
day, namely on 16.7.1992. Crime No.197/92 was
registered by the police in relation to the
occurrence at 5.30 p.m. on 16.7.1992 on the basis
of the F.I. Statement given by the wife of PW1, the
injured and that is Exhibit B2. FIR registered on
the basis thereof is Exhibit B4. On the side of the
appellant those documents were being suppressed.
6. The F.I. Statement was recorded at the
Medical College Hospital when the wife of the
appellant reached there on getting information
about the accident. Then she had no case in her
statement that her husband sustained injuries when
an autorickshaw hit against the scooter, which PW1
MACA 343/03 5
was riding. She also does not say that it was PW2
who had taken her husband to the hospital. These
are material particulars which one would normally
find in the F.I. Statement had those been facts to
the knowledge of the wife of the injured.
7. It is worthy to note that Exhibit B2 was
recorded only at 4 p.m. and wife of the injured had
sufficient opportunity also to enquire about the
cause of the accident. The Tribunal also observed
that in Exhibit A5 wound certificate, the doctor
has stated that the injured had the smell of
alcohol. If at all it was PW2 who had taken the
injured to the hospital, especially when the
injured is his close friend, he would have
necessarily disclosed as to how the incident
occurred to the doctor as stated by him in court.
On the other hand, Exhibit A5 showed that the
injured was brought to the hospital by one Mathew,
where as PW2 is Joseph. These aspects go a long way
to belie the testimony of PW2. The Tribunal also
MACA 343/03 6
observed that in Exhibit A1 charge against the
second respondent he pleaded guilty of the charge
and fine was imposed on him and that it was a
collusive affair between the claimant and
respondents 1 and 2. Further, the evidence of PW1
showed that the second respondent is a neighbour
having residence adjacent to his wife’s house at
Piravithanam. In inspection of the autorickshaw by
the Motor Vehicle Inspector, no damage could be
found to the autorickshaw which is alleged to have
collided with the scooter. Considering all the
above aspects, the Tribunal came to the conclusion
that the appellant/petitioner sustained injuries by
falling down from the scooter on his own and that
the alleged involvement of an autorickshaw is a
subsequently cooked up story, so as to claim
compensation from the third respondent. The reasons
stated by the Tribunal to dismiss the claim
petition do not deserve to be upset so as to come
to a different conclusion, in the circumstances
MACA 343/03 7
discussed above. We concur with the findings of
the Tribunal that the accident alleged is not true
and that there was no involvement of autorickshaw
insured by the third respondent in the appellant/
petitioner falling down from his scooter and
sustaining injuries.
In the result, this appeal deserves only to be
dismissed and it is, accordingly, dismissed.
(J.B.Koshy, Judge)
24th September, 2008
(K.P.Balachandran, Judge)
tkv
MACA 343/03 8
J.B.Koshy &
K.P.Balachandran, JJ.
-----------------------
M.A.C.A.No.343 of 2003
-----------------------
JUDGMENT
24th September, 2008