IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 19TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1387 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1222/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV) ------------------------ SUDHEER, S/O.JANARDHANAN, AGED 31 YEARS, CHANDRIKA HOUSE, KOYAPPARAMBA, KZOHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN O.P.(MV) --------------------------- 1. HARRIS HAJI, S/O. ABDULLA, FATHIMA MANZIL, CHOLAMVAYAL, P.O, VADAKARA, KOZHIKODE. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD CITY BRANCH, RAMEEZ ARCADE, C.H.FLYOVER JUNCTION CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY ADV.MR.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1387 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)1222/04. The claimant, an owner of a car bearing Reg.No.KL.11/M- 1152 had claimed damages of Rs.25,000/-. It is the case of the claimant that the car was hit by a bus. The only document marked before the Tribunal was only a photo of the damaged car. It has to be stated that the way in which the case is attempted to be proved before the concerned Kozhikode Tribunal at that point of time appears to be quite unsatisfactory and the common defence put up by the lawyers are that the Judge has not permitted them to do so. It is really a sad state of affairs and it is the imperative duty of the lawyer to produce necessary documents to satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the correctness of the case. I find time and again matters are coming up before the Court with the same set of grievance for non production M.A.C.A. 1387 OF 2009 -:2:- of relevant documents. I hope and feel that better wisdom will prevail at least hereafter and do things methodically. For the laches of somebody a client should not loose the case if he is entitled to get compensation. I stop there. The learned counsel appearing here for the appellant had produced before me for perusal the copy of the registration certificate, a copy of the surveyor's report etc. which give some indication regarding the nature of the case. So I am inclined to grant an opportunity. At the same time the learned counsel for the insurance company had also pointed out before me that there was a comprehensive policy for the car and so it should be looked into and there is no unjust enrichment for the claimant. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It must be also informed that the M.A.C.A. 1387 OF 2009 -:3:- claimant is not entitled to double benefit on account of a comprehensive policy for his vehicle. Parties are directed appear before the Tribunal on 5.3.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-