Sidhique vs Pramod P.K. And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1649 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                 PRESENT
               THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C. JAYACHANDRAN
        FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JANUARY 2023 / 7TH MAGHA, 1944
                         MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009
  AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 25.09.2008 IN O.P.(MV) NO.1235/2003 OF
         PRINCIPAL MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE


APPELLANT/PETITIONER :-

             SIDHIQUE
             S/O ALI, KOYALUMMAL HOUSE,
             NARIPPATTA AMSOM DESOM, BADAGARA,
             KOZHIKODE DIST.

             BY ADV SMT.T.V.NEEMA



RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS :-

    1        PRAMOD P.K.,
             PUTHANPURAYIL HOUSE,
             THAMARASSERY.P.O. KOZHIKODE DIST.

    2        A.M.ABBAS, S/O. MOIDEENKUITTY,
             NIKUNJAM ULLAS COLONY, THAMARASSERY,
             KOZHIKODE DIST.

    3        NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.
             AL-MUBARAK BUILDING, EDODI,
             BADAGARD, KOZHIKODE.

             BY SRI.RENIL ANTO KADAMKULATHY




     THIS    MOTOR   ACCIDENT   CLAIMS     APPEAL   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.01.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009
                                    2

                    C.JAYACHANDRAN, J
        ------------------------------------
                   M.A.C.A.No.1561 of 2009
       --------------------------------------
      Dated this the 27th day of January, 2023


                          J U D G M E N T

1. The non-suited claimant in O.P.(M.V)

No.1235/2003 of the Principal Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Kozhikode, is the appellant. The

appellant's claim was dismissed by the Tribunal

holding that the same is not bonafide, besides

being fraudulent to secure an award somehow.

2. Heard Smt.Neema T.V, learned counsel for the

appellant and Sri.Renil Anto Kandamkulathy, learned

counsel for the third respondent/insurance company.

Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant/claimant

contended that Ext.A6 series medical records

bearing the date on which the accident occurred

were not considered by the Tribunal. According to

the learned counsel, the Tribunal has wrongly

considered the impact of Ext.A2 Final Report, which MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009

clearly depicts an accident and attributes

negligence on the part of the driver of the

offending car. The accident occurred when the

claimant/appellant was a pillion in a motorbike,

which collided with a car which came in the

opposite direction. The number of the motorbike was

KL-11-G-3577, whereas the number of the offending

car was DL-4-CB-3161. Merely for the reason that

the claimant, when examined as PW1, accidentally

referred to the number of the car, instead of

stating the number of the motorbike, the claim

cannot be thrown overboard is the submission of the

learned counsel. Without any adequate material, the

Tribunal had gone in a tangent to cast aspersions

against the investigating officer, to ultimately

find, without there being any rational basis, that

the claim is a fraudulent one.

4. Per contra, the above submissions were refuted

by the learned counsel for the respondent. The

learned counsel relied upon the reasoning of the

Tribunal to sustain the judgment.

MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009

5. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for

both sides, this Court is not persuaded to upset

the findings of the learned Tribunal. Primarily,

this Court finds that there is a delay of 14 months

in lodging Ext.A1-FIR, reckoned from the date of

the alleged accident, which delay is not explained

at all. The name of the driver of the motorcycle is

not indicated in the Ext.A1-FIR. Secondly, Ext.A6

series-medical bills and discharge card referred

the incident only as a fall; and not as an

accident' as claimed by claimant/appellant. This

Court notices that Ext.A4-letter of the hospital

dated 16.05.2002 issued after one year and four

months from the date of incident also refers to

injuries caused after a fall and there is no

whisper of an accident. Thirdly, this Court notices

the findings of the Tribunal with respect to the

inspection of the vehicles by a Motor Vehicle

Inspector, which was done 16 months after the date

of the alleged accident, obviously disclosing no

damage on any of the two vehicles. The delay in MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009

lodging the FIR, as also, the delay in getting the

Vehicle Inspected is not explained at all. The

claimant has no case that he was incapacitated or

precluded for any reason in not lodging the FIR on

time. Even the doctor who treated the claimant was

not examined. The claimant rest contended with the

evidence adduced by himself as PW1, coupled with a

few records including FIR, Final Report, Scene

Mahazar, Ext.A4-letter etc. Ext.A5 is an order of

the Judicial First Class Magistrate-I, Thamarassery

wherein the second respondent-driver had admitted a

charge of negligent driving and paid fine, which

the Tribunal found to be fraudulent and collusive.

At any rate, the accident as claimed by the

claimant cannot be found on the strength of Ext.A5

alone.

6. This Court finds no reason to upset the

findings of the Tribunal. This Court is of the

opinion that the findings against the Investigating

Officer in the absence of adequate proof were not

warranted. This Court also does away with the costs MACA NO. 1561 OF 2009

directed to be paid by the applicant, as also,

respondents 1 and 2, who had allegedly colluded

with the applicant to defraud. It is one thing to

say that the claim is not substantiated. However,

there is no adequate evidence to find that there

was an attempt to defraud, by securing an award

somehow. Therefore, the direction to pay the cost

is dismissed. Barring the above, the order of the

Tribunal shall stand confirmed.

The appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

C.JAYACHANDRAN JUDGE SMA