IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 MFA.No. 1399 of 1999() ---------------------- OPMV.1781/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: -------------------------- E.VENU, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O. KANNAN KUTTY, EYYASSERI PARAMBIL, 'VELLILAVAYAL', KOLATHARA P.O., KOZHIKODE DIST. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS ANTONY RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------- 1. THE MANAGING PARTNER, M/S. BALAKRISHNA ROAD LINES, GURUVAYOOR (R.C. OWNER OF THE BUS KL-8/3247) *2. V.V. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O. V.V.KRISHNAN, 'VETTIKATTU VALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O. KUNNAMKULAM TRICHUR DIST. (DRIVER OF THE KL-8/3247), D.L.NO.451/67) (2ND RESPONDENT IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DT. 28.3.06 ON IA 654/06) 3. M/S. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ANUGRAHA BUILDINGS, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DIST. (CERTIFICATE NO.929253) 4. C.K.KUNJUMON, AGED 42 YEARS, S/O. KUNJUNNY, CHEEMAKKAL HOUSE, PAZHANJI, KUNNAMKULAM, TRICHUR DIST. (R.C. OWNER CUM DRIVER OF THE BUS KRR 8847) 5. M/S. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE O. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL 'C' SHAPE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, KUNNAMANGALAM – 680 503. (INSURER OF THE BUS KRR 8847) POLICY NO.101202/31/40/6087/90/92) BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 SRI.P.RAVINDRAN (SR.) FOR R1 SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R5 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 1399 OF 1999 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) 1781/95. The Tribunal had dismissed that application for default. 2. It has to be borne in mind that the very intendment of the beneficial legislation is to award compensation on consideration of the materials. It is equally true that there is a duty cast on the claimant to help the court by producing documents. A Division Bench of this court held that ordinarily an application for compensation shall not be dismissed for default. It has been modified by a Full Bench to a certain extent. Whatever it may be, I feel this is a case where an opportunity can be given for the parties to conduct the case on merits. Therefore, the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps