IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2009 / 5TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 187 of 2007(B) --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN MACA.602/2003 Dated 12/01/2007 OPMV.63/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... REVIEW PETITIONER : PETITIONER/APPELLANT ------------------------------------------ MADHAVAN, S/O.KANDANKORAN, THEKKEMATTATHIL HOUSE, THIRITHUMURI DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.SANSILAVOS, KALIYADAN HOUSE, MALAPALLIPPURAM DESOM, POYYA VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.K.GEORGE, S/O.KORATH, POTTEMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUZHUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SMT.SHEEJO CHACKO THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & M.N. KRISHNAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- R.P.No.187 of 2007 in M.A.C.A.No.602 of 2003-B ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of June, 2009 ORDER Krishnan,J. This review petition is filed against the judgment in M.A.C.A.No.602 of 2003 dated 12/1/07 whereby this Court affirmed the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, dismissing the claim. A perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal would reveal that the claimant was a pedestrian and while attempting to cross the road, he had been hit by a vehicle. The police filed the charge sheet against the offending vehicle and when the matter came up for consideration, the claimant did not appear and tender any evidence to prove the negligence and therefore the Tribunal found that the negligence is not proved. Though it quantified the amount, it did not pass any award in favour of the claimant for that reason. In appeal, this Court also found the same; but R.P.No.187 of 2007 -: 2 :- an important circumstance was omitted to be brought to the notice of the Division Bench that the claimant was employed abroad at the time of dismissal of the matter by the Tribunal which disabled him to appear before the Tribunal to tender evidence. It is also seen that the charge sheet against the offending vehicle in this case was filed. So considering the fact that he was abroad and it was only an omission to be brought at the stage of argument in an appeal, we feel that an opportunity can be given and therefore we set aside the judgment passed by us in the appeal and review the same and remand the case back to the M.A.C.T., Irinjalakuda, with a direction to permit the claimant to adduce evidence in support of his contentions. Needless to say, the respondents are also entitled to challenge the same and adduce evidence in support of their case. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5/8/09. 2. This Review Petition is accordingly allowed. Sd/- R. BASANT (Judge) Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge R.P.No.187 of 2007 -: 3 :- R.P.No.187 of 2007 -: 4 :-