IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1747 of 2006()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.K.BABY, S/O.KOCHUKURU,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.T.RAJESH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :27/06/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1747 OF 2006
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 27th day of June, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)587/02.
The claimant while travelling as a pillion rider sustained
injuries in a road accident due to the capsize of the bike in
which he travelled. The insurance company denied the
accident and the Tribunal on appreciation of the materials
before it held that the accident had taken place and it was
due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent
and awarded a compensation of Rs.34,600/-. It is against
that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the counsel for the insurance company and
perused the award. It is the definite case of the claimant
that while he was travelling as a pillion rider, the vehicle
capsized and resulted in injuries to him. As per a private
complaint a F.I.R. was registered and after due investigation
the police filed Ext.A4 charge sheet against the first
M.A.C.A. 1747 OF 2006
-:2:-
respondent in the claim application under Section 279 and
338 IPC. There was a wound certificate which indicates
about the accident and sustainment of injuries. It is
recorded that it is a fall from bike. When the vehicle
capsized and the pillion rider sustained injuries it will amount
to a fall from bike and it cannot be said that what is spoken
to by the claimant is incorrect. Further, the first respondent
in the claim petition appeared before the Magistrate Court
and pleaded guilty and he has been convicted. So these
documents are there to establish the factum of the accident.
Further before the Tribunal PW1 and PW2 were examined
which also proved the factum of accident. Learned counsel
for the insurance company would contend before me that the
time of the accident show it is an indication that it has not
happened. The time gap is about 2 to 3 hours. The question
is whether an accident as spoken to had taken place at that
time. Materials supplied are only one sided which has been
appreciated and found by the Tribunal in favour of the
claimant. I do not find any ground to interfere with the said
M.A.C.A. 1747 OF 2006
-:3:-
decision.
So far as the liability of the insurance company is
concerned there is no plea that there is no coverage by the
policy and therefore that also does not loom large for
consideration. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and the
same is dismissed.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-