IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 472 of 2004(C) ------------------------- AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 3/04/2002 IN OP(MV)NO.732/1996 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM. .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER : --------------------- P.GANGADHARAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, KATTIPPARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMANGALAM, EDAPPALLY SOUTH, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.A.BAHULEYAN SRI.K.A.SEBASTIAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------- 1. MANOJ, S/O.ARAVINDAKSHAN, ACHUTHA VIHAR, KODANAD, KOOVAPPADY. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PERUMBAVOOR BRANCH. 3. GOPI MOHAN P. MANAGER, OVERSEAS BRANCH, MEDICAL COLLEGE BRANCH, KOZHIKODE. 4. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, NAGARCOIL. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE - R2 & R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 472 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 732/96. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal found that he was responsible for the accident and dismissed the claim application. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred by the claimant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice the award passed in OP (MV) 733/96 by the Addl. MACT, Ernakulam. It is a case, which according to the appellant is the one filed by the rider of the scooter in which he was travelling as a pillion rider. The Tribunal found that the negligence was on the other vehicle and granted him compensation. So we are in a very peculiar circumstance where there is a finding by one Tribunal that it was O.V.Mohan in the application OP(MV) 733/96 who was riding the scooter whereas in the present case the finding of the Tribunal is that it was the appellant who was driving the scooter. Similarly there is a finding in the other case that the accident took place on account of MACA No.472/04 2 the negligence of the other scooterist whereas in this case the finding is that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the appellant. Unfortunately, two cases which had arisen out of the same accident had been decided by two courts and that has most probably created the confusion. If the finding in OP(MV) 733/96 has become final, most probably the question of negligence or who is the rider of the scooter cannot be re-agitated in this case for the reason that the respondents will be barred by the principles of res judicata. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.472/04 3