IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 655 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.1253/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER:. -------------------------------------- K.P.PATHUMMAKUTTY, AGED 55 YEARS, WIFE OF LATE BEERANKUTTY, KODUKUTHIPARAMBA, NALLORE EAST, FEROKE POST, KOZHIKODE - 673 631. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB ABRAHAM SMT.KOCHUMOL KODUVATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. SASTHYAPRAKASH, SON OF SANKARAN, THEKKEPURACKAL HOUSE, THENHIPALAM, MALAPPURAM. 2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PANDIKKADU ROAD, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.E.NARAYANAN FOR R1 ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 655 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Principal Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode, in OP(MV) 1253/98 whereby it has dismissed the claim application. 2. Heard the counsel for all. The claimant was a passenger in the autorickshaw. It is submitted that while she was travelling in the autorickshaw, another autorickshaw which came from the opposite direction collided with the auto in which the claimant was travelling and resulted in injuries to her. The Tribunal non- suited the claim on the ground that there was delay in lodging FIR by 3 days and the driver, owner and the insurer of the auto in which the claimant was travelling has not been made a party. It also held that except her, no others had sustained injuries and no convincing evidence was made available. 3. It appears that the Tribunal has arrived at a finding more on suspicious circumstances rather than on the materials available before it. It is equally true that the claimant should have produced acceptable evidence before the Tribunal to establish the factum of MACA No. 655/07 2 negligence. Therefore, I feel this is a fit case which requires reconsideration. I have to remind the Tribunal that when it is going to dismiss the case on the question of non joinder of necessary parties, it is imperative that an issue has to be framed on that point and an opportunity be given to the parties to implead such persons. I do not find any issue being raised in spite of the pleadings by respondents 1 an 2 in the case. So it may have to frame an additional issue on non joinder. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to frame additional issue on non joinder of necessary parties and give an opportunity to the claimant for impleadment. The claimant as well as the respondents are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contention regarding negligence and the Tribunal shall thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 26.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 655/07 3