BINISH Vs. K K SUDHAKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP (MV) 1119/04. According to the claimant he had sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding on a bicycle and when an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No. KL-7M-4984 hit on his bicycle resulting in injuries to him. The owner cum driver remained ex parte and the insurance company denied the accident and alleged collision, The Tribunal on an analysis of the materials did not find in favour of the claimant and dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. According to the claimant the accident took place on 02/11/00 when his cycle was hit on the autorickshaw driven by the first respondent. For the first time a document evidencing treatment is produced dated 04/11/00. It is a wound certificate issued by Government Hospital at Mulanthuruthy. The claimant reported before hospital and submitted that he had been hit by an autorickshaw on 02/11/00 at 1.30 p.m. He was admitted as an inpatient in the hospital. He had sustained a fracture on the middle metacarpal. The Tribunal held against the appellant, on the ground that immediately after the accident according to him he visited the hospital by name Varsha but as no document evidencing admission of that person in the said hospital was produced the Tribunal thought all is not well with the case. It has to be remembered that the criminal law was set in motion only by filing a private complaint after 45 days and after investigation the police filed a charge sheet against the first respondent and on receipt of summons pleaded guilty before the Magistrate's Court and he was convicted and sentenced to pay fine. So the result of the investigation only supports the cause of the claimant. It is true that no document is produced with respect to the visit of the claimant to Varsha hospital. It is to be remembered that if there was a mala fide intention for him to foist a false case necessarily as a prudent man he would have put the criminal law also in motion immediately on 04/11/00. But when the authorities did not inform the police he moved the complaint under S.156(3) CrPC. Just because the insurance company contends for the position that there is collision the Court cannot jump to the conclusion regarding the same without an iota of evidence. Absolutely there is no evidence tendered by the insurance company to prove the fraud or collision. Whereas materials would indicate that though he got involved in an accident on 02/11/00 he came to know about the seriousness of the same later and therefore visited the hospital on 04/11/00 and thereafter set the criminal law in motion. One cannot presume that in all cases there is fraud applied by the claimant in order to claim compensation. There must be some materials. It shall not be done on mere conjectures and surmises. So mere contention in the written statement is not sufficient. PW 1 had entered the box and tendered evidence and produced documents and also examined independent witnesses. Unless there is something concrete to hold otherwise, it is not proper to arrive at a decision that everything is not well. Therefore I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the claimant sustained injuries in a road accident as alleged by him and the accident took place on account of the negligence of the autorickshaw driver.

(3.) Now turning to the compensation. Unfortunately the Tribunal did not enter into a finding regarding the quantum of compensation. I do not want to remit the case for the reason that much time can be saved and the learned counsel for the appellant had shown before me the document relating to the treatment. The injury sustained by the claimant is a fracture on the middle of metacarpal. According to the learned counsel he was a carpenter by profession and therefore reasonable compensation may be awarded. I fix the compensation as follows.