IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2449 of 2008()
1. K.RAJEEV, S/O. RAGHAVAKURUP,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. P.P. IMBICHI ABBOBACKER AGED & FATHER'S
... Respondent
2. ABHILASH, N.V. S/O.KRISHNANKUTTY,
3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
For Petitioner :SMT.K.V.RESHMI
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/11/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2449 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd 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)2137/04.
It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding as a
pillion rider to KL-11-H-9016 and when that vehicle was
coming down a bridge another vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-11-
D-945 came and hit on the vehicle in which the claimant was
travelling as a result of which his leg got entangled in the
bridge resulting in sustainment of injuries. The alleged
incident is said to have taken place on 11.8.04. The criminal
law was not set in motion by referring the matter by the
hospital authorities but the first information statement was
given only on 29.9.04. The document produced was only a
first information report registered by the Kozhikode city
traffic police. No other document other than a wound
certificate is produced. How the accident took place,
whether there was negligence, whether the police conducted
M.A.C.A. 2449 OF 2008
-:2:-
investigation and filed charge sheet etc. are totally lacking
and absent. Therefore the Tribunal felt it is not a case which
can be entertained and therefore dismissed the same with
compensatory costs. When a case is filed before the Tribunal
there is a normal responsibility cast on the claimant to
satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the accident,
negligence and injuries. A mere production of an F.I.R. or a
wound certificate will not be sufficient when the accident is
disputed by the other side. Therefore I cannot find fault with
the Tribunal for not entertaining the claim. But taking a
lenient view I am inclined to set aside the order whereby the
Tribunal has awarded the compensatory cost of Rs.1,000/- to
the 3rd respondent. With this modification the appeal is
disposed of.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-
