IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH JANUARY 2010 / 14TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 1081 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1811/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/ 1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, COIMBATORE (DIVISION-D), METTUPALAYAM ROAD, COIMBATORE, (OWNER OF TN 38 N-0381 BUS). BY ADV. MR.ANIL SIVARAMAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDEDNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. V. RAMESHKUMAR, S/O.VASU, KURUPATH HOUSE, MUNDEKKODE CHANDRANAGAR, PALAKKAD DIST. 2. M. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.MADHAVAN, 313 SULEESARANPETTY KODUR ROAD, POLLACHI, TAMILNADU. (DRIVER OF TN- 38 N 0381 BUS) R1 BY ADV. MR.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD). THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/01/2010, THE COURT ON T HE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. MACA.No. 1081 of 2008() ORDER ON I.A. NO.1463/2008 IN MACA NO.1081/2008 DISMISSED 04/01/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1081 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 4th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)1811/01. The claimant, a rider of the bike sustained injuries when it collided with a Tamil Nadu Transport Bus in the Palakkad- Pollachi road. The finding on negligence discussed by the Tribunal appears to be far from satisfactory. In order to arrive at a finding on the question of negligence so many ingredients are to be looked into. First of all one has to understand what is the direction of vehicles. Then one has to understand the correct side of the vehicles and in a case like this where there are marks on the road it will also speak in volumes about the speed of the vehicles. Rider as well as the driver has been examined. But the Court did not consider any evidence but simply relying upon the police documents without discussing the same had arrived at a decision. The accident had taken place admittedly in a curve M.A.C.A. 1081 OF 2008 -:2:- where there was lack of visibility. So these are all matters where one has to apply his mind to find out really the question of negligence. Therefore the finding entered into by the Tribunal on the question of negligence requires reconsideration and if necessary, parties may furnish additional evidence for deciding the case correctly. Since the matter has to go back let the question of compensation be again considered afresh. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the question of negligence as well as the quantum. For the said purpose let the parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and let the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. I also direct the Tribunal to consider the materials discussed above and arrive at a decision so that the things will be clear in a case of this nature. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1.2.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-