IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 847 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.3150/2004 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, "SHARANYA", HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE, ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ BINU JOHN, S/O.JOHAN, EZHUMAYIL HOUSE, KUNNAPPILLY KARA, EDAKKATTUVAYAL, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS K.PHILIP. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO.867 OF 2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 847 of 2010 ORDER ON I.A.NO.1306/2010 IN MACA NO.847/2010 DISMISSED 19/11/2010. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NOs.847 & 867 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T Two brothers namely Binu John and Biju John moved applications for compensation on the ground that while Binu John was riding a motor cycle with the other brother as pillion rider, a white ambassador car came and collided resulting in injuries to them. The insurance company would contend that such an accident had not taken place at all and Biju John had not driven the vehicle at all. 2. It is unfortunate that in these type of cases where really there is a contention regarding actual accident and negligence, the claimants have not let in any oral evidence but satisfied with the production of some documents which includes some documents that are totally against them. It has to be remembered that here is a case where the police after registering the crime conducted an enquiry and closed the case of the claimants as a false case. When it is so I find even a protest complaint is not filed. To crown all these things not any evidence or explanation is tendered : 2 : M.A.C.A.NOs.847 & 867 OF 2010 especially to prove the accident. The documents available here are in the form of wound certificates, a scene mahazer, Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector's report etc. On the basis of these documents, the policeconducted the investigation and arrived at a decision that it is a false case. When it is so, it is rudimentary that the claimants explain the situation regarding the accident and the negligence. I also feel that the Tribunal was totally unjustified in acting upon this document especially in the backdrop of the refer report to arrive at a decision of this nature on this case. I am not dealing elaborately for the reason that the matter requires reconsideration. Most probably this is a case where the whole investigation files may be necessary and parties also have to be given a chance to adduce evidence to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding the nature in which the accident had taken place or whether the accident had taken place at all. 3. Therefore, the awards under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all the parties concerned to produce both : 3 : M.A.C.A.NOs.847 & 867 OF 2010 documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.12.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NOs.847 & 867 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T