YOOSEPH K.V. Vs. PAREETH KUNJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant approached the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 1,80,000/ - alleging that he sustained injuries in a road traffic accident occurred on 18/12/96. Allegedly while the appellant was travelling by a bus he was thrown out of the vehicle on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent who was driving the bus. The vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. Before the Tribunal respondents 1 and 2 remained ex -parte. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company resisted the claim contending that the accident arose not out of the use of the vehicle as alleged.

(2.) THE learned Tribunal after considering the evidence consisting of PWs.1 and 2 and RWs.1 and 2 as well as Exts.A1 to A7 and X1 and X2 found that the appellant did not sustain any injuries as alleged and dismissed the claim petition. Aggrieved by this the claimant has come up in appeal.

(3.) THE submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant who was thrown out of the bus was taken to Sanjoe Hospital, Perumbavoor by one Nishad who narrated the alleged cause of injury to the Doctor. From the Sanjoe Hospital the appellant was evacuated to M.M.M Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery where he underwent treatment till 11/01/97. Though the incident is said to have occurred on 18/12/96 law was set in motion only on 08/01/97, that too on the basis of a private complaint filed by the appellant's brother before the Magistrate's Court concerned. The same was forwarded to the police under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. The police after investigation filed Ext.A4 charge sheet before the court. The learned Tribunal found that it is a fake claim mainly for two reasons. The first reason is that the alleged cause of injury stated in Ext.X1 report issued by the Medical Mission Hospital, Kolenchery was that "due to the history of fall at 6.45 a.m. while walking along the road". The learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company would argue that as it was the first opportunity to narrate the incident the learned Tribunal had given due weight to the alleged cause of injury made mention of in Ext.X1. The second reason is that the evidence of PW2, the only independent witness examined on the side of the appellant, also is not convincing enough to arrive at the conclusion that the appellant had sustained injuries in a road traffic accident.