IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2009 / 13TH MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 2713 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.2577/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OPMV: --------------------------------- IMBICHIPATHU, W/O.MUHAMMED, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT PERISSERI HOUSE, P.O.PANTHEERANKAVU, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV: ----------------------------------- 1. P.NAJEEB, S/O.ABDUL RAZAK, AGED 28 YEARS RESIDING AT SUHARA MANZIL, KOYYERITHAZHAM, P.O.ERANHIPALAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, KINGSWAY BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADVS. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R2 SRI.P.G.MANU (MAMMALASSERY) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/02/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2713 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV) No.2577/2003. The claimant, alleging to be a passenger in a bus which met with an accident, had claimed compensation for the injuries sustained in the accident. The tribunal on a consideration of the materials was dissatisfied with the materials available and therefore dismissed the case with a compensatory cost of Rs. 1,000/-. It is against that decision the appeal has been preferred. 2. Ext. A1 O.P. Ticket is of the year 2004. But the relevant document Ext. A2 Reference card is dated 17.12.2002. The accident had taken place on 16.12.2002. The tribunal did not accept Ext. A2 on the ground that it was filed long after filing of the O.P.(MV). The learned counsel would contend that it was a document produced along with the claim application and for the said purpose he also gave me a copy of the petition which would show that in the index of document, the 2nd document is a copy of the reference card. Suppose the tribunal is dissatisfied with the M.A.C.A. 2713/2008 -2- genuineness of the said photocopy of the card, certainly the claimant is duty bound to establish regarding the genuineness of the same. Or in other words in a case of this nature where the very involvement of the claimant in the accident is disputed, the claimant is expected to produce cogent and convincing evidence before the tribunal to satisfy it conscience regarding involvement of that person in that accident. I do not want to elaborate on the point and so I think an opportunity can be given. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to the tribunal to permit the claimant to get herself examined and produce documentary as well as oral evidence, if necessary, to call for the original as well and establish the involvement of the person and thereafter to decide the compensation in accordance with law. Needless to say, the Insurance Company can also produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of its contention. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 16.3.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm