This appeal challenges a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal order denying compensation due to unproven accident facts and record tampering. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal, upholding the Tribunal's finding.
The appeal is dismissed and the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal is upheld.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT :
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929
MFA.No. 1099 of 1998(B)
----------------------AGAINST THE ORDER IN OP(MV) No.1055/95 OF MACT, TRIVANDRUM.
APPELLANT: PETITIONER
L.JAYAPRASAD, S/O.LEKSHMANAN JAYANIVAS, KARIKKAKOM, BEACH P.O., TRIVANDRUM.
BY ADV. SRI.SUMAN CHAKRAVARTHY
RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS:
BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
M.F.A.No.1099 of 1998
Dated this the 21st January, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
Appellant filed the Original Petition claiming compensation alleging that on 8.1.1993, he met with a road traffic accident and sustained injuries. He impleaded the owner, driver and insurer. The owner and driver did not appear and contest the matter. The Insurer alone contested the matter. It was contended that it is a
false case, and no accident as alleged in the original petition took place. The accident is alleged to have taken place on 8.1.1993. No intimation was given to the police, and no case was registered, at the time of accident. Subsequently, on 1.3.1993 appellant filed a complaint before the Magistrate, which was referred to police, under Section 156 Cr.P.C. It is true that police filed a final report alleging that accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. Ext.A5 wound certificate shows that the appellant went to the Medical College Hospital, at 2.30 a.m. On 9.1.1993. At that time, the cause of injury was that he fell down from a scooter. There was absolutely no suggestion that appellant was riding a scooter. He was smelling alcohol also at that time. The Tribunal noted the fact that in the O.P.
M.F.A. No.1099/1998
2
Ticket, initially, there was an entry to the effect that appellant himself was riding the scooter. But there were material alterations and tampering with the original medical records. Considering all aspects of the matter, the Tribunal found that appellant failed to establish that the accident occurred due to the fault of the driver of the motor cycle. I am of the view that the finding of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. So, the appeal is only to be dismissed.
In the result, the appeal is dismissed.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,
JUDGE
nj.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J.
M.F.A.No.1099 of 1998
J U D G M E N T
Dated:21st January, 2008.
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's finding that the appellant failed to prove the accident occurred due to driver's fault requires interference.
L.JAYAPRASAD
JAYAPRAKASH.C.L.
NATARAJAN
THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
K.PADMANABHAN NAIR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
