AMBIKA KUMARI Vs. KAMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal picturises a splendid example wherein the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has imported its own pre-conceived notions and presumptions in discarding the evidence on record and in rejecting the claim instituted by a helpless lady at the age of 40 years, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident.

(2.) The appellant herein is the claimant in OP (MV) No.1069/2004 on the files of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. She approached the Tribunal seeking compensation to the extent of Rs.1,10,000/- for the injuries sustained to her in a motor vehicle accident, which allegedly occurred at 11.30 a.m. on 26-07-2003 near L.P. School, Anoopara at Alayilmukku-Avanavancherry Public Road. The allegation in the claim petition is that, while walking along the side of the above said road she was knocked down by a scooter bearing Registration No.KL 01 Q 2833 driven by the 2nd respondent at a rash and negligent manner at excessive speed. The claim was resisted by the 3rd respondent by filing written statement wherein a contention was taken that no accident of the description as mentioned in the claim had never taken place indeed. According to the 3rd respondent the claimant is seen to have got injured in some other incident and she has approached the Tribunal with a false claim to extract money from the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. In support of such contention it was pointed out that there occurred unreasonable delay of 297 days in reporting the occurrence to the police and the police had registered the case only on the basis of a private complaint filed by the claimant before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court-I, Attingal, which was forwarded by that court to the Attingal Police, under Section 156 (3) of Code of Criminal Procedure. It was also contended that the respondents 1 & 2 are colluding with the claimant in filing the application seeking compensation.

(3.) While adjudicating the issue as to whether the claimant had sustained bodily injury in an accident as alleged and as to whether the 2nd respondent was rash and negligent in causing such an accident, the Tribunal found that;