IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2322 of 2007()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUDHEER, S/O. HASSAN,
... Respondent
2. SAJEEL, S/O. EBRAHIM,
For Petitioner :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :31/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J
-----------------------
M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007
---------------------------------
Dated this the 31st day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.265/2003.
It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion
rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-6/A-7073 driven by the
first respondent, the vehicle overturned on account of the
negligence of the rider resulting injuries to him. The Insurance
Company would contend that the case of the petitioner is not
correct and that it was the petitioner who was riding motorcycle at
the time of the accident and further even if he was a pillion rider, it
was an Act only policy. It is contended that he is not covered by
the policy. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials confirmed
that the accident had taken place and that the claimant was a
pillion rider and therefore awarded compensation. It is against that
decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. At the out
set it has to be stated that though the accident took place on
24.11.2000, the petition was filed only on February 2001. That is
after a period of more than two months. It is true that immediately
M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007
-2-
after the accident he was taken to a hospital and the wound
certificate would reveal that the cause of accident is fall from a bike.
The doctor who had treated him was summoned before the Court
and he had produced Ext. X1 and given evidence before the
Tribunal. The doctor had clearly stated the reason for non
preparation of the wound certificate was that ”
He further submitted that the word used was fall from a bike and as
it was a self accident, intimation was not given to the police. He
has been cross examined and he would deposed that it is not
reported in the wound certificate ”
”
The evidence of the doctor and Ext. X1 has not been taken into
consideration at all by the Tribunal and it acts upon the basis of the
evidence of PWs. 1 and 2. The claim in his statement before the
police would show that he did not file a complaint because the rider
was his friend. But the same person chooses to file a complaint
against the very same person after two months. So the explanation
given for not filing the complaint in time cannot be accepted. If
really there had been accident as alleged by the claimant, there
would be materials to establish the same. The alleged driver
M.A.C.A.No. 2322 OF 2007
-3-
certainly if he had not sustain injuries would have taken him to the
hospital. The evidence of the doctor would show that the
information was furnished by the claimant himself. It is very easy
to file a private complaint after a laps of so many months and prefer
a claim before the Motor Accident Tribunal. The mere delay may
not be ground to reject the claim of a person but there must be
reasonable, acceptable and truthful explanation for the same. The
explanation tendered is unsatisfactory. The proceedings in criminal
case does not bind a Tribunal. There is no axe to grind for a doctor
to come and depose against the claimant. The evidence of the
doctor is entitled to weight and the surrounding circumstances also
would establish that the case of the claimant is not acceptable as
such. Therefore I disagree with the Tribunal and hold that the
claimant had not succeeded in proving his claim and therefore he is
not entitled to any compensation.
In the result, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by
the Tribunal is set aside and the claim petition is dismissed. If the
Insurance Company has deposited the amount it is entitled to get it
reimbursed from the Tribunal on appropriate application.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vkm