IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2008 / 21ST SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 248 of 2003() ---------------------- OPMV.864/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- BIJU GEORGE S/O. K.A.GEORGE, KOCHATU HOUSE, POICKATTUSSERY, P.O. CHANGANANED, ERNAKULAM 683578 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN SRI.T.VENUGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. V.V.ALI S/O. P.M.MOHAMMED, NALYIYAKATH HOUSE, P.O. IRINJPRAM, VIA-PUTHUPALLY 2. KUNJUMOIDEEN S/O. AHAMMED, THOTTATHODIYIL NAMBITKULAM VEETTIL, NEAR OVUNGAL CHURCH, GURUVAYUR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, WADAKKANCHERY ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2008, THE COURT ON 12/08/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.A.C.A. No.248 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 12th day of August, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. The appeal is filed against the order of the MACT dismissing appellant's claim petition for compensation for injury sustained by him in an accident. The MACT held that appellant's negligence caused the accident and therefore, claim petition was rejected, even though compensation was computed for the injury sustained by the appellant. We have heard counsel for the appellant and Standing Counsel appearing for the third respondent. 2. The third respondent specifically pleaded before the MACT that the policy issued to the Moped against which appellant raised claim, expired two years prior to the accident and consequently the Insurance Company has no liability. Inspite of specific plea of the Insurance Company that the Moped was not covered by a valid policy issued by it, the appellant did not produce any evidence to prove that the vehicle was covered by Insurance at the time of accident. In the circumstances, the appeal against third respondent is dismissed. However, the matter does not rest there because appellant has a case that respondents 1 and 2 as owner and driver of the 2 Moped, which caused the accident, are liable. While the appellant relies on Police case against second respondent, driver of the Moped, MACT relied on the Scene Mahazar and held against the appellant because scene of occurrence is on the wrong side of the road for the appellant and so much so, MACT assumed negligence on the appellant. Even though appellant has a case that there is an eye witness who gave F.I. statement before the Police, he was not examined. In other words, the only evidence available before MACT was appellant's interested testimony against the Moped driver. We cannot find fault with the MACT for not relying on appellant's evidence as sufficient to hold against the Moped driver and in turn it's owner. However, having regard to the serious nature of injuries sustained by the appellant, we feel one more opportunity can be granted to adduce relevant evidence to prove his case against the owner and driver of the Moped. We make it clear that notice should be issued to the Insurance Company only if and after appellant produces evidence about the subsistence of policy issued by any Insurance Company in respect of the Moped at the time of accident. The MACT will issue fresh notice to 3 respondents 1 and 2 before proceeding further in the matter. The appeal is disposed of with direction as above. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms