IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1272 of 2005()
1. NAZEER, S/O. KOCHUNNY,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SALIM, S/O. IBRAHIM,
... Respondent
2. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O. KANNAN,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER,
For Petitioner :SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :31/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1272 OF 2005
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 31st day of July, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This is an application filed under Section 163-A of the
M.V. Act for compensation. It is the case of the appellant
that he was travelling in a bicycle and when it reached the
place of accident a scooter driven by the first respondent
came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the bicycle
resulting in injuries to him. The first respondent denied the
accident and the 3rd respondent also supported that
contention. The Tribunal on an over all analysis of the
materials held that the accident is not proved and therefore
dismissed the claim.
2. Under Section 163-A of the M.V.Act there is no
necessity to prove the factum of negligence. But there is
necessity to prove the factum of accident and the
involvement of the vehicle. The Tribunal found that though
the claimant and the first respondent belong to the very same
locality and they know each other when the first information
M.A.C.A. 1272 OF 2005
-:2:-
statement was given the claimant did not divulge the name
of the rider but only contends that he can be identified by
seeing him. The police who conducted the investigation
referred the case and it is further stated in the report that
the vehicle KEH 9156 was not involved in an accident on
29.1.97. It is true that there is a mistake in that report to
the effect that the rider’s name is shown as Nazeer in stead
of Salim. Nazeer is none other than the claimant and he has
no case that he had driven such a vehicle. So it is only a
mistake. In spite of refer report the claimant has not chosen
to file any protest complaint also. It is also found by the
Tribunal that the most crucial document namely the wound
certificate was not produced at all before the Tribunal and
only a medical certificate had been produced. The non-
production of the wound certificate also throws suspicion in
the matter and so the Tribunal found the accident is not
proved and therefore non-suited the claimant. The three
M.A.C.A. 1272 OF 2005
-:3:-
reasonings rendered by the Tribunal appears to be proper
and correct and therefore I hold that the appeal lacks merit
and it is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-