IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA No. 1419 of 1996(A)
1. SHINY
... Petitioner
Vs
1. T.M.BENNY
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.PHILIP T.VARGHESE
For Respondent :SRI.N.ANILKUMAR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
Dated :27/03/2007
O R D E R
K.Padmanabhan Nair,J.
-----------------------------
M.F.A.No.1419 of 1996-F
-----------------------------
Dated, this the 27th day of March, 2007
JUDGMENT
This appeal is filed by the petitioners in O.P.(M.V.).
No.128 of 1991 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal,
Perumbavoor. They filed petition claiming compensation against
the respondents alleging that the 1st petitioner sustained an
injury in a motor vehicle accident. It is averred that at about
11.00 A.M. on 21.10.1991 she was hit by a lorry being
registration No.KRR 3756 and sustained injuries. It was alleged
that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of
the lorry. The owner did not appear and contest. The driver and
Insurer contested the matter. It was contended that there was
no negligence on the part of the driver. The existence of valid
policy was admitted by the Insurer. The Tribunal dismissed the
application holding that the petitioners failed to establish that the
1st petitioner sustained any injury in a motor vehicle accident.
2. On the side of the appellants-petitioners, they
produced Exhibit A4 certificate, which shows that the 1st
appellant had sprain on right ankle and she was advised to take
M.F.A.No.1419 of 1996
– 2 –
rest from 21.10.1990 to 10.12.1990. Exhibit X1 produced at the
instance of the Insurer shows that the 1st appellant was admitted
in St.Thomas’ Hospital, Malayattoor with a history of ‘fall’ and
she had pain and swelling on the right ankle and there was
fracture to the tip of tibia. The doctor who treated the 1st
appellant was examined. He has stated that the alleged history
was stated as due to fall. It is true that a criminal case was
registered against the driver of the lorry. But, the case was
registered on a private complaint filed long after the incident.
Though the appellants examined two witnesses, the Tribunal
rejected their evidence. I do not think, it will be just and proper
to find that the appellant sustained injuries in a motor vehicle
accident solely based on the oral evidence of witnesses. It cannot
be said that the finding of the Tribunal is illegal or unsustainable.
The appeal is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
K.Padmanabhan Nair
Judge
vku/-