K.Rajeev vs P.P. Imbichi Abbobacker Aged & … on 3 November, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.Rajeev vs P.P. Imbichi Abbobacker Aged & … on 3 November, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  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/-

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *