IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 14TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 2376 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.673/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RANNY, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONERS2 TO 6 ---------------------------------------- 1. KUNJAMMA, EASOPARAMBIL (H), DEVAGIRI ESTATE, VELICHIYANI, PARATHODU P.O. 2. SOOSAMMA, EASOPARAMBIL (H), DEVAGIRI ESTATE, VELICHIYANI, PARATHODU P.O. 3. LISSY, EASOPARAMBIL(H), DEVAGIRI ESTATE, VELICHIYANI, PARATHODU P.O. 4. LALY, EASOPARAMBIL(H), DEVAGIRI ESTATE, VELICHIYANI, PARATHODU P.O. 5. JOY VARGHESE, EASOPARAMBIL (H), DEVAGIRI ESTATE, VELICHIYANI, PARATHODU P.O. 6. MADHUSOODANAN NAIR, EDAYANIKUZHIYIL, MANIMALA P.O. 7. BABYKUTTY, KAVUKATTUPARAMBIL, MUKKADA P.O. ADV. SRI.K.J.JOSEMON FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.C.M.TOMY FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.MATHEW SKARIA FOR R1 TO R5 SRI.JINU JOSEPH FOR R7 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A NO.2779 OF 2009 IN M.A.C.A No.2376 of 2009 DISMISSED 30/9/2009 SD/- M.N KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.2376 OF 2009 -------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award if the claims tribunal Pala. In OPMV 673/2006. The original claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and during the pendency of the proceeding he died and his legal representatives has been impleaded as supplemental claimants. The Tribunal rippled the contention of the insurance company that one Santhosh Chacko was driving the vehicle and mere give importance on the police charge to arrive at a decision that second respondent was driving the vehicle. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. 3. The learned counsel for the insurance company had made available before me documents produced in the case. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not considered the documents produced by the insurance company and the evidence. The first document after the accident is the wound certificate. It is seen from the wound certificate that it was one Santhosh Chacko who had taken the claimant to the hospital. It is also stated therein that “Santhosh Chacko ” in order to prove that statement he was examined by the Tribunal and he had spoken to that effect as well. In the first information statement also case is registered against Santhosh Chacko and only when the ultimate charge is filed, the second respondent figures as the driver. When there are some materials which indicates or creates a suspicion in the mind of the court regarding the driver, there was a responsibility cast on the claimant as well to dispel the same. Here that is the only a one sided evidence of R1 and R2 and the Tribunal simply relied upon the charge sheet to hold that the second respondent was driving the jeep. I am afraid, the evidence has not been analysed and at the same time it is also necessary to give an opportunity for the claimant to establish their case that the vehicle was driven by the second respondent. Neither the legal representatives of the original claimant nor any independent witness nor any police officials who had arrived at a decision changing the name of the driver examined to establish the same. Therefore, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. The parties are directed to produce all documentary and oral evidence with regard to their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the court on 3.3. 2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.