IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH JANUARY 2010 / 23TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2229 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1816/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: --------------------------------------------- V.P.GOPINATH, S/O.APPU, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT VALLIYAPURAKKAL HOUSE, CHIRANGOTTU MEETHAL HOUSE, PO.CHEVAYOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV.: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SAGESH.K.,S/O.GANGAHDARAN NAIR,AGE NOT KNWON, RESIDING AT KALATHIL PARAMBA, PO.KUTHIRAVATTOM, KOZHIKODE.. 2. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, SEEMAS BUILDING, G.H.ROAD, KOZHIKODE. 3.SUPPL. K.P.KUNHIRAMAN, "ASWATHI", PIPE LINE ROAD, CALICUT. (AMMENDED AS PER ORDER IN I.A.NO.849/2009 DTD. 16/06/06) R2 BY ADV. MR.P.MURALEEDHARAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2229 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 13th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.1816/2005. The claimant, who is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident, moved an application for compensation and it was dismissed for want of evidence. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends before me that if an opportunity is given, he will be able to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding the alleged incident. It is seen that the vehicle in which the claimant was travelling was proceeding through a pocket road to join the main road. The factum that two vehicles have collided is established. The only question survives for consideration is who is negligent. Unfortunately the claimant did not mount the box and the court was not satisfied with the production of the First Information Report only. The learned Tribunal was unhappy about it and therefore, dismissed the case for want of proper evidence. I do not want : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2229 OF 2009 to probe further into the matter, but I am satisfied that an opportunity has to be given to the claimant to prove the case. 3. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the claimant to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contention and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that the insurance company can also take its defence in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.2.2010. Disposed of accordingly M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2229 OF 2009