IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2008 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 355 of 2003(C) ------------------------------- (OPMV.1610/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) APPELLANT: PETITIONER ------------------------------------ K.K.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS, S/O.KRISHNA MENON, KADANTHOTTIL HOUSE, AMEDA ROAD, UDAYAMPEROOR. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SRI.RADHIKA RAJASEKHARAN P. SMT.NITHYA.K. RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. VINCENT P.PAUL, PANAKUZHI HOUSE, MUTTUCHIRA, KADUTHURUTHY. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., COCHIN 16. BY ADV. SRI.M.A.HAKIM SHAH THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.99/2003 IN M.F.A. 355/2003 DISMISSED. 26-5-2008 Sd/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // True copy // P.A. to Judge. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 355 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) No.1610/96 whereby the court below dismissed the claim petition. It is the case of the appellant that he had stopped the vehicle behind a tanker lorry as there was a traffic block and the driver of the tanker lorry reversed it without any care and the same hit on the autorickshaw which resulted in injury to him. Though notice of appearance was issued, nobody entered appearance and the court with the available materials, dismissed the claim as a frivolous petition. 2. I feel the court has been little harsh on the appellant. There were atleast some materials produced before the court in the form of first investigation report, scene mahazar, police charge, wound certificate, discharge summary etc. When such is the situation, the court should have viewed it in that ankle and should not have jumped to the conclusion that it is a false case. It is true that the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector report is not produced. Similarly the witness of the hospital had deposed that the original of MFA No.355/03 2 the wound certificate is missing but the case sheet and other papers are produced. The mistake committed herein is by deleting the driver. When the whole factum of the accident is denied it is always desirable that the driver is in the party array. Similarly it is not known why even the Insurance company has kept silent. Most probably all these facts made the court to feel that everything is not all right and therefore dismissed the application. But, I feel it was not a case which should have been dismissed in that way and an opportunity should have been given to the appellant to establish the fact. 3. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to the appellant herein to implead the driver of the tanker lorry and again issue notice to the owner and the Insurance company and produce relevant documents and adduce material evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 3.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA No.355/03 3 MFA No.355/03 4 MFA No.355/03 5