In motor accident claims, the burden of proof for denying liability lies with the insurance company, necessitating adequate evidence from both parties for fair adjudication.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed by the claimant in O.P (MV) No.258 of 2011 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, challenging the dismissal of the claim petition by the tribunal. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of claimant was that on 15.04.2010, while the claimant was pillion riding on a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-5/AA-4719, ridden by the 1^st respondent in a rash and negligent manner, fell down, and she sustained serious injuries. The claimant approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

3. The first respondent/rider and the second respondent/owner of the motorcycle remained ex-parte before the tribunal. The third respondent, insurer, filed a written statement admitting the insurance policy for the motorcycle but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and further contended that the claimant did not sustain any injury. Before the tribunal Exts. A1 to A4 and Ext X1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, dismissed the claim petition.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the accident occurred on 15.04.2010, and on sustaining injuries, she was taken to Bharath Hospital, Kottayam, where she underwent treatment as an inpatient. Since the police did not register any case, a private complaint was filed by the claimant and hence the FIR could be registered only on 20.09.2010. Ext.A2 charge sheet was drawn against the rider of the motorcycle. The petitioner also relied on Ext.A4 series of duplicate bills and Ext.A3 letter dated 09.10.2012 issued from Bharat Hospital, Kottayam, wherein it is stated that she was treated as an inpatient from 15.04.2010 onwards. It is also submitted that though the appellant was seriously injured and was eligible for compensation, the tribunal, without any proper consideration of the documents produced, dismissed the claim petition.

6. The learned standing counsel appearing for the insurance company, on the other hand, submitted that the claimant failed to produce satisfactory documents to prove that an accident occurred on 15.04.2010 and that she had sustained injuries and had undergone treatment in Bharath Hospital, Kottayam. The learned standing counsel for the insurance company further submitted though Ext.P3 letter was issued, the letter was dated 2012, whereas the treatment was alleged to have been undergone in the year 2010. Ext.A3 certificate was not proved by adducing evidence. According to the learned standing counsel for the insurance company, no such accident as alleged had occurred and she did not sustain any injuries in the said accident. The tribunal has rightly dismissed the claim petition filed by the claimant.

7. I have considered the rival contentions raised by both sides.

8. It is the case of the appellant that she met with an accident on 15.04.2010 and sustained serious injuries due to the rash and negligent riding of the first respondent. Ext.A4 series are the medical bills for an amount of ₹2,339/-. The bills are not the original bills but are the duplicate ones. Further, Ext.A3 certificate was produced by the appellant from Bharat Hospital, Kottayam, which reads as follows:-

“This is to certify that Ms. Girija T.N., 34/F, had a fall from bike on 15.04.2010, suffered comminuted intra-articular fracture upper end left tibia. She was conservatively treated with long leg cast and discharged on 17.04.2010. Plaster removal done after six weeks and physiotherapy started. She is continuing physiotherapy.”

9. Ext.A2 charge sheet was drawn finding negligence on the part of the first respondent in this case.