IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 9TH JULY 2010 / 18TH ASHADHA 1932 WP(C).No. 23507 of 2004(W) -------------------------- OPMV.124/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- BINNY ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, EDETTU HOUSE, MEENACHIL VILLAGE, PALA KARA, PALAI P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BINOY ABRAHAM, S/O. ABRAHAM, EDETTU HOUSE, PALAI P.O. 2. SHAJU T.K., S/O. K.M.KURIAN, THAZHATHEDATHU HOUSE, KIZHATHADIYOOR P.O., PALAI 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ENNIKKATTIL ESTATE, P.B.NO.37, NEAR K.S.R.T.C. BUS STAND, THIRUVALLA, PIN 689 101. ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 23507 of 2004(W) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: EXT.P1: TRUE COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION DTD.22.2.2000 IN OP(MV)12/2000 OF M.A.C.T., PALA. EXT.P2: TRUE COPY OF WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 31.5.2002 FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P.(MV)NO.124/2000. EXT.P3: TRUE COPY OF THE ADDL. WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 11.9.2003. EXT.P4: TRUE COPY OF THE I.A.ANO.2355/04 SEEKING TO RE-OPEN EVIDENCE IN THE CASE. EXT.P5: TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DTD. 29.7.2004 IN I.A.2355/04. EXT.P6: TRUE COPY OF THE IA.2423/04 SEEKING AMENDMENT OF OP(MV). // TRUE COPY /// TKS P.N.RAVINDRAN, J. ---------------------------- W.P.(C)No.23507 of 2004 ---------------------------- Dated 9th July, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the claimant in O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The claim petition was filed in the year 2000 claiming the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in an accident that took place on 19.12.1999. 2. The claim petition stood posted for evidence on 13.7.2004. On that day, the learned counsel for the petitioner/claimant submitted that the claimant does not wish to adduce any oral evidence. On the basis of the said submission, the documents produced by the claimant were marked with consent and the case was adjourned to 21.7.2004 for the evidence of the respondents. On 21.7.2004, the Manager of the insurance company was examined as RW1 and Ext.B1 was marked. The case was posted for hearing to 29.7.2004. On the previous day (28.7.2004), the petitioner filed I.A.No.2355 of 2004 to reopen the evidence and to examine him. The said application was rejected by Ext.P5 order passed on 29.7.2004. In the instant writ petition the petitioner WP(C).No.23507/2004 2 challenges Ext.P5 order. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala to consider Ext.P6 application for amendment of the claim petition (I.A.No.2423 of 2004) filed after Ext.P5 order was passed and to pass orders thereon before disposing of the claim petition. 3. I heard Sri.P.C.Haridas, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Lal George, learned standing counsel for the third respondent insurance company. Though the other respondents have been served, they have not entered appearance. In my opinion, as the claimant is seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal should have allowed the petitioner an opportunity to enter the box and testify in support of his claims and contentions. The claim petition was filed way back in the year 2000. But, it was listed for trial only in the year 2004. No prejudice would have been caused to the insurance company even if the claimant had been given an opportunity to adduce evidence. All that the claimant had asked for was to examine himself as a witness. The documents relied on by him had already been marked. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ought to have granted the petitioner an opportunity to enter the box and testify in support of his contentions. WP(C).No.23507/2004 3 4. I shall now deal with the request made by the petitioner for a direction to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to consider Ext.P6 application. Ext.P1 claim petition discloses that the petitioner was traveling in a goods autorickshaw. In the claim petition he had no case that he was accompanying the goods carried in the autorickshaw. By Ext.P6 application he seeks to amend the claim petition by incorporating the words “accompanying goods “ in column Nos.10 & 28 of the claim petition. Sri.Lal George, learned standing counsel for the third respondent contended relying on the decision of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh (2008 (4) KLT 552 (SC)) that even if the amendment is allowed, as the petitioner was not the owner of the goods and no goods had been carried in the vehicle, no purpose will be served by amending the claim petition. In my opinion, this is a matter touching upon the merits of the claim made by the petitioner. If the petitioner is not able to prove that he was accompanying the goods or that he was the owner of the goods or that he could have travelled in a goods vehicle as a passenger accompanying the goods by sharing the driver's seat, the Tribunal will have to take a decision on the merits applying the relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court on the point. I therefore find no reason why the petitioner WP(C).No.23507/2004 4 should not be permitted to amend the claim petition. Though the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the petitioner will not succeed even if such a plea is raised, I find no reason why such a plea should not be allowed to be raised. I accordingly set aside Ext.P5 and dispose of the writ petition with the following directions: (1) I.A.No.2355 of 2004 in O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000 shall stand allowed as prayer for. The Tribunal shall afford the petitioner an opportunity to enter the box and testify in support of his contentions by affording him one more opportunity in that regard. The petitioner shall produce a certified copy of this judgment before the Tribunal on 26.7.2010, after giving notice to the learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 in O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000. The Tribunal shall on that day fix a date for appearance of the petitioner to testify. It is clarified that if the petitioner does not comply with the above direction, the Tribunal will be free to decline any further opportunity to the petitioner to adduce oral evidence. (2) O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000 shall stand allowed. The petitioner shall file a copy of the amended claim petition incorporating the amendment proposed in I.A.No.2423 of 2004 within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. It will be WP(C).No.23507/2004 5 open to the respondents in O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000 to file an additional written statement to the amended claim petition within another two weeks thereafter. (3) The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal shall endeavor to dispose of O.P.(MV)No.124 of 2000 within three months from 26.7.2010. P.N.RAVINDRAN Judge TKS