On the allegation that in a motor accident that took place at 5 p.m. on 15.04.2004, the appellant filed a petition before the Tribunal for compensation. His version is that while he was going along a public road, a motorcycle bearing Registration Number KL/8-P-9665 knocked him down causing him injuries. The accident was allegedly due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent, who was the rider of the vehicle. The 1st respondent was the owner and the 3rd respondent the insurer. The Tribunal found that the case of the appellant cannot be believed and it dismissed the petition. Aggrieved by the award the appellant has filed this appeal. 2. Heard.
3. The accident allegedly took place at 5 p.m. on 15.04.2004. The appellant was initially treated at Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chavakkad. The Police did not register a case. Information about the accident was given to the Police only on 01.02.2005 and the Police registered a case on that date. The appellant did not go into the box to explain the delay in informing the Police.
4. The appellant was treated at the Taluk Head Quarters Hospital, Chavakkad for four days. He sustained the following injury :
Tenderness over anterior aspect of the right thigh and the knee.
X ray was taken. He was discharged on the next day of the admission. On the very same day of his discharge, he was admitted to a private hospital, where he was treated as an inpatient for 4 days. Ext.A4 is the discharge card. At the time of the discharge, his condition was satisfactory.
5. As mentioned earlier, the Police registered a case against the 2nd respondent on 01.02.2005. After investigation, the Police filed final report to the effect that the accident was due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and he was liable to be punished for the offences under Secs.279 and 338 of Indian Penal Code. Ext.A6 is a copy of the final report. According to the Police, the incident happened on 16.04.2004. The appellant’s case is that it was on 15.04.2004. There is no explanation on the part of the appellant for this. The final report was produced by him and it is relied on by him. The document shows that the investigation was not honest. So, no reliance can be placed on the document prepared by the Police.
6. The reason for the appellant's not giving oral evidence is not known. In the nature of the case, his oral evidence was necessary. The burden was on him to explain the delay in informing the Police and the inconsistency in the date of occurrence. The Tribunal rightly held that the appellant’s version is not believable.
In the result this appeal is dismissed.
K. ABRAHAM MATHEW JUDGE NS