SIRAJ K.K v. THUJAS P.T

BY ADV. SRI.T.A.SHAJI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: -----------------------------------

THUJAS P.T., PEECHAMPILLY HOUSE, PADIVATTOM, EDAPPALLY P.O. ERNAKULAM.

P.S.BABURAJ, PERINCHERI HOUSE, KAKKANAD, COCHIN-30.

THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ERNAKULAM.

MANOJ KUMAR, MANGALATHU VETTICODE, MAVELIKKARA.

THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR -R5 BY ADV. SRI.NELSON J.MANAYIL -R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN -R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08-08-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: PIUS C. KURIAKOSE & A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------ M. A. C. A No.593 of 2007 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 8th day of August, 2012 JUDGMENT Pius C. Kuriakose, J The claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is the appellant and he is aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal dismissing the claim petition which he filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act on the reason that the appellant did not adduce any satisfactory evidence regarding the incident or the negligence. On the basis of Ext.A2 F.I. statement given by the appellant Ext.A1 FIR was registered implicating the rider of the other motorcycle, which collided with the motorcycle which the appellant was pillion riding, as the accused. But the police after investigation submitted Ext.A4 refer report concluding that the appellant's allegation is not correct and that the rider of the other motorcycle was not negligent. The appellant's case M. A. C. A No.593 of 2007 -2- is that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the rider of the other motorcycle. The appellant was not able to produce any document which will show that the rider of the other motorcycle, the first respondent herein was negligent. We do not find way to award any compensation to the appellant under Section 140 on the reason that there is involvement of the other motorcycle as the evidence in the case falls short of holding that the appellant sustained any injury which comes within the scope of Section 142. In short we do not find any warrant for interference with the impugned award. The appeal will stand dismissed. Sd/- PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE Sd/- A. V. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI JUDGE kns/- //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE M. A. C. A No.593 of 2007 -3-