IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 627 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.2072/2005 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- SUGATHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN, GURUKKAL KANDY HOUSE, ANDIKKODE, THALAKULAM POST, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.JOSE, S/O.PAULOSE, PAYYAPPALLY HOUSE, THURAVOOR POST, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, P.B.NO.811, NOOR COMPLEX, NEAR ARAYADATH PALAM, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.N.MANOJ R2 BY ADV. SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.627 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.2072/2005. The claimant sustained injuries in a motor accident and the Tribunal has dismissed his claim and it is against that decision, he has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the vehicle number is not properly proved relating to the accident. The real number of the vehicle which got involved in the accident is KEF 7876. It is pointed out from the records namely the charge sheet which is produced as Annexure-A1 before this Court that it is the correct number. But, unfortunately, in the FIR it is shown as KBF 7876. The claimant had also taken care to correct the vehicle number in the petition, but did not substantiate it with the relevant documents. Therefore it prompted the Tribunal to dismiss the case. : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.627 OF 2010 3. I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for doing so, but as a certified copy of the charge sheet is available before me and as the vehicle shown is KEF 7876, I find that the vehicle involved in the accident is KEF 7876. But from the charge sheet it is found that one Sunil Kumar is the person who was driving the vehicle. Strangely Sunil Kumar is not even made a party in the case filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. It is only in exceptional case where negligence is not disputed, the court can dispense with impleadment of the driver. Dispensation of impleadment of the driver is only an exception. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity making it very clear that the driver has to be impleaded and the question of negligence has to be found out. Thereafter the Tribunal can fix the compensation as envisaged by law. 4. Therefore the appeal is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to implead the driver and then consider the question of negligence as well as quantum. For this purpose, the parties be permitted to : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.627 OF 2010 produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.7.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.627 OF 2010