IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM TUESDAY, THE 27TH JANUARY 2009 / 7TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 1115 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.3748/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- ABDUL MANAF, AGED 33 YEARS, SON OF YOUSAF, COLONY NO.78, NEERKUNNAM, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.NITHYA.K. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. M.R.ASHOK KUMAR, MARESSERI, PUTHENIPURAYIL HOUSE, ASSAMANNOOR P.O. 2. BABU, CHETTIYERIKKAL HOUSE, MORAKKALA, KUNNATHUNADU. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ERNAKULAM. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R4 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C.K.ABDUL REHIM, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.1115 of 2004 .................................................................... Dated this the 27th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Appeal is filed against the order of the MACT rejecting the claim petition filed by the appellant claiming compensation for the injury sustained by the appellant in a road accident involving the tempo driven by the appellant and the mini lorry driven by the second respondent. The reason for rejection of the claim petition is non- production of AMVI's report and non-joinder of parties, namely, owner of the tempo whose driver appellant was. If appellant had sustained injury while driving the tempo, then the tempo would have suffered damage entitling the registered owner to claim compensation against the offending vehicle and it's insurer. Therefore, there is nothing wrong in MACT holding that the registered owner of the tempo should be a necessary party. Besides this, appellant should have produced his driving licence and AMVI's report which itself will prove the damage to both the vehicles. However, we do not think appellant's claim 2 should be dismissed on technical reasons. We, therefore, give an opportunity to the appellant to take copy of the AMVI's report and his driving licence and produce the same along with application for impleading the registered owner of the tempo before the MACT and if any such application is filed along with the documents and if MACT finds that the documents are genuine, the matter will be reopened by recalling the award and claim will be disposed of afresh after issuing notice to all parties. The appellant is granted two months from date of receipt of copy of this judgment, to file application before the MACT with documents for reopening the case. The appeal is disposed of as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge C.K.ABDUL REHIM Judge pms