JUDGMENT

The claimant in O.P.(MV).No.668/2001 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara, has approached this Court by filing this appeal, being aggrieved by the dismissal of the claim petition.

2. According to the appellant, he sustained injuries in a motor accident that occurred on 08.03.2000, when the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-04-D-7119, on which he was pillion riding, was hit against an electric post due to the rash and negligent riding of the 1st respondent. Consequent to the same, the appellant was thrown away and sustained serious injuries, for which, he availed inpatient treatment at Pushpagiri Hospital, Thiruvalla. The claim petition was submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation.

3. Initially, the 2nd respondent/Insurance Company filed a written statement accepting the coverage of policy for the vehicle but disputing the accident. According to the 2nd respondent/Insurer, at the time of the accident, the appellant, was driving the vehicle and not the 1^st respondent as claimed in the claim petition. Therefore, they sought the dismissal of the claim petition. They also disputed the quantum of compensation. After completing the evidence, the 1st respondent appeared and filed a written statement denying negligence on his part. However, it was also contended that the vehicle was covered with a valid policy, and he was duly licenced to ride the motorcycle as well.

4. The evidence in this case consists of oral testimony of PW1, the appellant himself and as documentary evidence, Exts.A1 to A12 were marked. The wound certificate and the records maintained by the hospital were produced and marked as Exts.X1 and X1(a).

5. After the trial, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the appellant himself was riding the motorcycle at the time of the accident, and hence the application was dismissed. This appeal is submitted by the appellant, challenging the said finding.

6. Heard Sri.A.N.Santhosh, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Sri.A.R.George, the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

7. There is a serious dispute in this case as to the manner in which the accident occurred. The specific case of the appellant is that at the time of the accident, the motorcycle was being ridden by the 1st respondent. The 2nd respondent/Insurance Company stoutly opposes the said contention. In the award also, a detailed discussion has been made by the Tribunal with respect to the materials adduced, touching upon the said issue and a categorical finding has been made to the effect that the case advanced by the appellant as to the manner in which the accident occurred was false.

8. In the award, the Tribunal noticed several discrepancies in the case advanced by the appellant. One of the crucial aspects to be noticed in this regard is that, while being examined as PW1, the appellant deposed that, after he sustained injuries in the accident, he was brought to Pushpagiri Hospital for treatment by some local people. He also stated that, in the accident, the rider of the motorcycle, the 1st respondent herein, also sustained serious injuries, and he availed treatment in the very same hospital. Ext.A1 is the FIR registered on 10.03.2000, one day after the incident, on the basis of information furnished by one Sachin Sadasivan, who claimed to be one among the persons who brought the appellant as well as the rider of the motorcycle to the Pushpagiri hospital. In the FIS, he stated that the rider of the motorcycle also sustained injuries on his leg, and one of his fingers was cut off. He further stated that, when they reached the Pushpagiri hospital, the appellant, who was unconscious, was admitted to the said hospital, and the rider of the motorcycle was taken to Specialist Hospital, Ernakulam, after administering first aid to him.

9. During the course of the trial, the records maintained by the hospital with regard to the wound certificate and other medical records were summoned as per the ord