IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH OCTOBER 2008 / 21ST ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 29630 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- PETITIONER: -------------------- K.I.ALEX, S/O.ISAC, KUNNEL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, PUTHUVASSERY, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KURIAN RESPONDENT(S): -------------------------- 1. K.GEORGE KURIAKOSE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, KAITHAKOTTIL, CHETHIKODE.P.O,KANJIRAMATTOM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. ELDO ALIAS, S/O.ALIAS, KOLUTHAKOTTIL VEEDU, PUTHUVASSERY KARA, KANJIRAMATTOM.P.O, AMBALLOOR VILLAGE, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, ERNAKULAM BRANCH NO.1, P.B.NO.1797, CHITTOOR ROAD, SOUTH JUNCTION, COCHIN-682016. 4. RAJEENA FRANCIS, MUTTUNKAL VEEDU, ANCHIRI.P.O, THODUPUZHA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 5. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, DIVISIONAL OFFICE KOCHI, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REP.BY BRANCH MANAGER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- W.P.(C). No. 29630 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 13th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This writ petition is preferred challenging Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 2625/99. A perusal of the orders would reveal that the claim petition has been dismissed twice for default and subsequently it has been restored. At a belated stage, the claimant filed an application for sending him to the Medical Board as well as another application to receive witnesses list. The Tribunal did not entertain both these applications. 2. Learned counsel would submit before me that on account of the non availability of the Doctor, who had issued the certificate, it has become necessary to refer the claimant to a Medical Board for proper assessment of the disability. 3. It appears to be only a genuine ground. If really the claimant is having disablement and if he is an accidental victim entitled to get compensation, technicalities shall not defeat the ends of justice. So far as the other prayer regarding reception of the witnesses list and examination of the witnesses, it is desirable that it WPC NO 29630/08 2 is also permitted for the reason that when the accident is seriously disputed, an opportunity should be given to the claimant to establish the factum of accident by cogent and convincing evidence so that later the Tribunal shall not state that the witnesses were not examined and therefore the claim petition cannot be entertained. It is true that there are laches on the part of the claimant. But being a beneficial legislation intended to give benefits to the motor accident victims, it is desirable to have a lenient view in these matters. Therefore, I set aside Exts.P4 and P6 orders passed by the Tribunal and restore both applications with a direction to the Tribunal to dispose of them afresh in the light of the observations made by me above. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps WPC NO 29630/08 3