IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1490 of 2007(G) ----------------------- OPMV.516/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.C.JANARDHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR, SUDHEERAS HOUSE, MEPPADI P.O., KOTTAPPADI VILLAGE, KAPPAMKOLLY. BY ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SUNNY @ MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, ARIMALIL HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA P.O., KARINGANNIKUNNU. 2. THE MANAGING PARTNER, THRIKAIPATTA, TRAVELS LTD., THRIKAIPATTA, MEPPADI. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, P.B.NO.11, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, ARIYIDATH PALAM, CALICUT. 4. MUHAMMED SALIM, S/O.AHAMMED, POONGADIN HOUSE, MEPPADI. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., M.G.T.BUILDINGS, KALPETTA NORTH, WAYANAD. ADV. SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN FOR R5 SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1490 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)516/99. It is the case of the appellant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KRZ/9586 when it reached the place of accident a bus bearing Reg.No.KL 12/1854 came from behind hit on him resulting in injuries to him and the rider of the bike. The Tribunal found the respondent, the rider of the motor bike, as negligent and directed him to pay the compensation. It is challenging that point as well as the quantum the appeal is preferred. 2. In the very same accident the rider has filed a claim petition as O.P(MV).514/99 and the very same Tribunal has found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the bus driver and directed the rider of the bike to be compensated by the insurance company. If that award has become final, i.e., O.P.514/99, the contention of M.A.C.A. NO. 1490 OF 2007 -:2:- negligence will not be available for the owner, driver and insurer of the bus. Similarly, in paragraph 9 of its award the Tribunal would state that the FIR, scene mahazar and oral evidence of PW1 prove that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R1. But when it reaches paragraph 11 it finds negligence on R4. I do not know how such a different finding can be entered into by a Tribunal in the very same award. So the matter is totally in a state of confusion and therefore the award is liable to be set aside. Since the claimant is challenging the quantum that also has to be considered. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording equal opportunity to all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions, thereafter the Tribunal shall hear both sides and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6.1.09. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-