Kerala High Court
Karunakaran Pillai vs Simon K on 26 September, 2018
Author: K.Vinod Chandran
Bench: K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
WEDNESDAY,THE 26TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2018 / 4TH ASWINA, 1940
MACA. No.2358 of 2007
AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV NO.248/2002 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS
CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA DATED 31-03-2006
APPELLANT/PETITIONER:
KARUNAKARAN PILLAI
S/O.NARAYANA PILLAI, AGED 42 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MALETH HOUSE, SPRING VALLEY P.O.,
KUMILY, PEERUMADE.
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.C.CHACKO(PARATHANAM)
SMT.ASHA CHACKO
RESPONDENT/S:
1 SIMON K., LEELA BHAVAN,
ROSAPPUKKANDAM, KUMILY P.O., PEERUMADE.
2 THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.
REP: BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA.
BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BABU
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD
ON 26.09.2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
The petitioner is the claimant before the Tribunal. The appellant contended that while he was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration MACA. No.2358 of 2007 2 No.KL-6A/9454, the vehicle overturned due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1st respondent driver. The accident is said to have occurred on 09.11.2001. The petitioner also contended that he was taken to St.Augustine's Hospital at Spring Valley and due to the seriousness of the injuries, he was referred to Aravind Eye Hospital, Theni. The 2nd respondent Insurance Company contested the matter on all grounds, especially on the ground that the accident as averred in the claim petition did not at all occur.
2. The Tribunal considered the defence set up by the Insurance Company in a fairly detailed manner. It was found that the specific contention of the petitioner was that he was travelling in an autorickshaw along with his son. His son and the autorickshaw driver allegedly took him the hospital at the first instance. However no FIR was registered on the basis of the road traffic accident. There is also no Injury & Wound Certificate issued by the hospital, where he is MACA. No.2358 of 2007 3 said to have been admitted immediately after the accident. There was no explanation offered by the claimant as to why there was no reporting of the accident immediately after its occurrence. The First Information Statement was made after 5 days.
3. The appellant had examined a Doctor, who had treated the appellant, who also stated that the appellant informed him that he was involved in a motor accident. However, the said Doctor deposed that there was no intimation given, since the examination of the appellant by the said Doctor was not immediately after the accident. The appellant had been referred by the Eye Hospital at Theni, when the said Doctor examined the appellant. The information given to the Police Station after five days, produced as Ext.A1, was also only a general diary entry and not a complaint against the autorickshaw driver. Though the appellant contended that the autorickshaw, which was involved in the accident had toppled and was completely damaged., the appellant had not suffered any other injury MACA. No.2358 of 2007 4 than that of the eye. It was in such circumstances that the Tribunal disbelieved the occurrence as stated by the appellant. It was also opined after perusing the record of the treatment to the eye, that certain wooden pieces were removed from the conjunctiva, which makes more probable that the appellant had suffered an injury at his work site as his admitted vocation was of a timber loading workmen.
The appeal would stand rejected. The parties are directed to suffer their respective costs.
Sd/-
K. VINOD CHANDRAN JUDGE //True Copy// P.A. To Judge sp/29/08/18