IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH JULY 2008 / 25TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 446 of 2003() ---------------------------------- (AGAINST O.P(MV) NO.2443 OF 1994, MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) APPELLANT/PETITIONER --------------------------------- THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD REP.BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDYUTHI BHAVANAM, PATTOM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.A.SUDHI VASUDEVAN, SC, KSEB RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------- 1. K.SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. MUTHUSWAMY GOUNDER H.NO.8/23, I.M.PALAYAM, MUTHOOR P.O., POLLACHI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, NOW WORKING AT DRIVER, EDAPPALLY, C.S.BROTHERS, ERNAKULAM. 2. S.V.RAJAGOPAL 'BEAUTY NIVAS' SOUTH KALAMASSERY. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH V-8, SUNITHA BUILDING R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE 641 002. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vsv M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 446 OF 2003 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)2443/94. The said petition is filed for damages sustained to the vehicle. The claim petition has been filed by the Secretary to the Kerala State Electricity Board. The Tribunal dismissed the case on the following grounds. (1) There is nothing to show that the Secretary is competent to file a case on behalf of the K.S.E.B. and (2) The petition is bad for non-joinder of the driver as well as the insurance company of the vehicle which belong to the K.S.E.B. 2. I feel the Tribunal has been really technical and it is a well settled proposition and of practical knowledge that in all the cases Secretary to K.S.E.B.. is initiating or defending action on behalf of the Board. Therefore I feel one need not insist for an authorization to be given by the Board M.A.C.A. 446 OF 2003 -:2:- and ultimately even if the damage is awarded it is only to the K.S.E.B. and not to the Secretary in his individual capacity. Therefore, the Tribunal need not insist for any further evidence on the same. 3. So far as the second point is concerned it is the case where it will not be one of composite negligence for the reason if the driver of the K.S.E.B. has contributed to the accident then certainly the claimant will not be entitled to get the full compensation but only after deducting the contributory negligence part. Similarly, if the K.S.E.B. does not succeed in proving that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the respondent's driver then they will not be entitled to any compensation. Therefore the said issue of non-impleadment also is not fatal to the case and on that ground also the tribunal ought not have dismissed the petition. On account of the same the Tribunal has not taken into consideration the other aspects and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set M.A.C.A. 446 OF 2003 -:3:- aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and the appellant as well as the insurance company are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.8.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-