IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1808 of 2006()
1. K.P. CHACKO, S/O.PAULOSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.P. VASUDEVAN NAIR,
... Respondent
2. MADHU N.B., S/O.BHASKARAN N.G.,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NATIONAL
For Petitioner :SMT.ANNIE PAUL
For Respondent :SRI.P.JAYASANKAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :14/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J
=====================
MACA No.1808 OF 2006
=====================
Dated this the 14th day of July 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1081 of 2002. The
claimant alleges before the Tribunal that he was knocked down by a bus
bearing Regn.No.KL/S-5598 driven by the 2nd respondent. He was initially
admitted in the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Muvattupuzha and later to
the Medical College Hospital, Kottayam. The insurance company has
denied the accident even the involvement of the bus. The Tribunal, on
appreciation of the materials has dismissed the claim application. It is
against that dismissal the present appeal is filed.
2. Heard the counsel for the appellant as well as the counsel for the
insurance company. The Tribunal arrived at a decision disbelieving the
versions of Pws.1 to 3 and giving all credence to a statement in the wound
certificate. It is the case of the claimant that he was hit by a bus and the
evidence is adduced to the effect that it was the conductor of the bus who
took him in an autorickshaw to the hospital. But what is recorded in the
MACA 1808/2006 -:2:-
wound certificate is
21.6.2002……………………………………………………………………………………………..
…………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
If the statement recorded in Ext.A6 certificate is truthful then certainly a
claim will not lie against the owner, driver and the insurance company of
the bus. But is it absolutely safe to rely on that statement alone to throw out
the claim is a matter to be considered. The police had recorded the statement
of the claimant on the very next day, conducted investigation and filed a
charge sheet against the driver of the bus and therefore the criminal
proceedings were proceeding in the direction that the bus had hit on the
claimant. If really it is the conductor, who had removed the claimant to the
hospital in an auto rickshaw under ordinary circumstances, it must be a hit
by a bus. I am not prepared to accept that a conductor of a plying bus
would abandon his trip and come to the rescue of the claimant and take him
in an auto rickshaw. This is a material point which may have bearing in the
case. Similarly, it is also the duty of the parties to dispel the suspicion from
the mind of the court regarding the entry made in Ext.A6 wound certificate.
A reading of the award does not show that Pws 1 to 3 were totally
untrustworthy witnesses why should an injured, who wants compensation
implead a false party is a question that also may arise for determination.
MACA 1808/2006 -:3:-
Neither the conductor nor the driver nor the Doctor, who had prepared the
wound certificate is seen examined in this case and their evidence may have
tell tale bearing on the finding regarding the factum who caused the
accident.
Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the
court. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration in the light of the
discussion made above. The appellant as well as the insurance company are
permitted to produce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their
respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in
accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below
on 26.8.2008 and the appellant may implead the legal representatives of the
owner before the final disposal of the matter in the case before the court
below.
MACA is disposed of as above.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
Cdp/-