IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 12TH MARCH 2010 / 21ST PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 1698 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.1805/2006 of PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ MUHAMMED M.M., S/O.AMMED KOYA, AGED 30 YEARS, RESIDING AT KIZHAKKEKUNDY PURAYIL HOUSE, P.O.MADAVOOR, (VIA) NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADVS. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN MR.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------- 1. LOHITHAKSHAN, S/O.KELAPPAN NAIR, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT VALAMPOYIL, P.O.MENHANIAM, PERAMBRA, KOZHIKODE. 2. LOHITHAKSHAN, S/O.MADHAVAN,AGED 49 YEARS RESIDING AT VEYOLTHAN CHALIL HOUSE, P.O.NARIKKUNI, KOZHIKODE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITE LINES BUILDING, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R3 BY ADV. SMT.R.REMA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ======================== M.A.C.A.Nos.1698 OF 2009 ======================== Dated this the 12nd day of March 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV). No.1805/2006. The Tribunal passed an award granting a compensation of Rs.1,500/- to the claimant and It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the Insurance Company. The learned counsel for the appellant had given for my perusal petitions filed by him to re-open the case and receive documents in evidence on 2.7.2008. It bears seal and signature of the court. Very strangely MACT returned it stating that the case had already been sent for judgment, hence returned. Time two weeks. It is signed by the MACT. I do not know, to whom it has been sent for orders and unless things are done in a proper manner the discipline in the system will vanish and M.A.C.A.Nos.1698 OF 2009 2 there must be application of mind in cases. I do not want to elaborate. The Tribunal should have either directed the petition to be numbered and rejected it or should have reopened and give a chance to the party to prove the case. This sort of returning will only put the party in to irreparable hardship. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and the appellant is permitted to produce documents and adduce evidence. Needless to say, the Insurance Company also can also produce materials in support of its contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.4.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns