JOSE Vs. JOLLY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claimant is the appellant. THE claim of the claimant- appellant for an amount of Rs.One lakh as compensation for the loss suffered by him as a result of the motor accident which took place on 13.4.2000 was dismissed by the Tribunal.

(2.) ACCORDING to the claimant, he was riding motor cycle No.KL 7Z/5595 from west to east through the Aluva-Choondy road on 13.4.2000. At 11 AM when he reached near a place by name Assissi at Aluva, a mini lorry owned by the first respondent, driven by the second respondent and insured with the third respondent came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner. That vehicle was engaged in an attempt to overtake another vehicle. As a result of the rash and negligence act on the part of the 2nd respondent, the two vehicles came into contact and the appellant was thrown off of his vehicle and fell in the drainage by the side of the road. He was immediately removed to the hospital. He was taken to the Medical Trust Hospital. He was in a semi-conscious condition at that stage. He was treated at the Medical Trust Hospital. He underwent treatment as an inpatient from 13.4.2000 to 24.4.2000. After discharge, he came to know that the police had not taken any action to prosecute the second respondent. He therefore filed a private complaint before the learned Magistrate. The learned Magistrate referred the said complaint to the police under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. The police thereupon registered a crime on 13.6.2001. The crime was registered under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. Ext.A1 is the copy of the FIR registered. After completion of investigation, final report/charge sheet was filed before the learned Magistrate by the police. Ext.A2 is the final report/charge sheet filed against the 2nd respondent by the police alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 338 I.P.C. The appellant claimed a total amount of Rs.One lakh as compensation.

(3.) THE Tribunal by the impugned award took the view that the accident has not been proved. THE Tribunal felt that the alleged cause narrated to the Doctor does not fully support the version of the appellant that he has suffered injuries in a motor accident. THE court did not accept the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2. THE court did not accept Ext.A2 charge sheet/final report filed by the police. Accordingly, the learned Tribunal proceeded to pass the impugned award.