IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON TUESDAY, THE 10TH FEBRUARY 2009 / 21ST MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1986 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.315/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- HAMEED, S/O.PALLIKUNHI, ATTAGOLI, MEENJA VILLAGE, P.O.KAYYAR, VIA.UPPLA. BY ADV. SRI.T.B.SHAJIMON RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. MOHAMMED AYAZ, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, RAHMATH MANZIL, OPP.MADANI QUARTERS, RASTI PADAPU, P.O.ULLAL, MANGALORE. 2. THE MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.ROAD, KASARAGOD. ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.1986 of 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 10th day of February 2009 J U D G M E N T R.BASANT,J The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The claim of the appellant was dismissed on the ground that negligence on the part of the 1st respondent has not been proved. The police had conducted an investigation and filed a charge sheet against the claimant/appellant alleging that he was culpably rash and negligent and the responsibility for causing the accident was his. In the trial against him, he was found not guilty and acquitted of the charges levelled against him under Ext.A4 judgment. No better evidence to show the responsibility for the accident was placed before the Tribunal. The learned Tribunal, in these circumstances, came to the conclusion that there is nothing to show that the accident occurred on account of the rashness and negligence of the 1st respondent. The only contention of the learned counsel for the appellant in this appeal is that further opportunity may be granted to the appellant to adduce proper evidence. 2. We are not satisfied that there has been denial of opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence. But all the same, M.A.C.A.No.1986/06 2 we are satisfied, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, that the appellant can be granted an opportunity to adduce proper evidence. We are satisfied that the award can be set aside and the matter can be sent back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 3. In the result, a) This appeal is allowed in part. b) The impugned award is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the case afresh after giving all contestants opportunities to raise and substantiate the available contentions. c) Parties are directed to suffer the respective cost. d) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 23/3/2009 without waiting for any further directions. 4. The Registry shall forthwith communicate the judgment to the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A.No.1986/06 3 M.A.C.A.No.1986/06 4 R.BASANT & P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009