IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 13TH JULY 2010 / 22ND ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 376 of 2007 ----------------------------------- OP(MV)359/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.4 : RAJULA, D/O.SAIDALI, ULLATTIL HOUSE, KANNACHALIL PARAMBA, CHERUVANNUR P.O., KOLATHARA, KOZHZIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 3: 1. B.M.ABDUL RAHIMAN, CHERUKAD HOUSE, P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. RUHIYABI, CHERUKAD HOUSE, P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. AMINAKUTTY,CHERUKAD HOUSE, P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 4. ARSHAD,(ARSHAD) AGED 10 YEARS, CHERUKAD HOUSE, P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 5. BHADARUNNISSA,(MINOR) AGED 8 YEARS, CHERUKAD HOUSE,P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 6. MEHARUNNISSA,(MINOR) AGED 16 YEARS, CHERUKAD HOUSE,P.O.ERAVAKKAD, VIA,KUMARANALLUR,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (RESPONDENTS NO.4 TO 6 ARE REREPSENTED BY THIER MOTHER 3RD RESPONDENT). 7. GANGADHARAN, S/O.KOCHUKUTTAN, KARANATH VEETTIL, PARALAM VILLAGE, AMMADAM P.O.,THRISSUR. 8. ANTONY THOMAS, PULLADAN HOUSE, PAZHAMUKKU, OLLUR P.O., THRISSUR. 9. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, THIRUVAMBADY DEVASWOM BUILDING, ROUND WEST, THRISSUR P.O. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R9 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R9 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.376 OF 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 13th day of July 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant an opportunity to the appellant to adduce evidence in support of her case. According to the appellant, she is the second wife of deceased Abdul Basheer who succumbed to the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident that occurred on September 6, 2000. But the Tribunal turned down the claim of the appellant for a share in the compensation amount and ordered the same to be paid to the parents and the first wife and children of the deceased. 2. Appellant got herself impleaded in the claim petition filed by the parents, the first wife and children of the deceased in O.P.(MV)No.359/02 pending before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur. It is on record that the appellant filed an interlocutory application before the Tribunal praying for reopening the case and allowing her to produce certain documents on her behalf. According to the appellant, she had obtained certificate from Cheruvannur Vadakke Juma-ath Committee evidencing her marriage with the deceased. She had also produced certain photographs taken on the occasion of her marriage with the deceased. However, the Tribunal dismissed the application (I.A.470/07) by the following order: M.A.C.A.No.376 OF 2007 :: 2 :: Heard. Sufficient opportunity was granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence in the claim petition. The claim petition is disposed of today by passing award. Hence this petition is dismissed. No cost. 3. The above order was passed on January 31, 2007 on which day the impugned award was also passed by the Tribunal. 4. Though notice has been served on the claimants, they have not appeared either in person or through counsel. But we have heard Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned Senior counsel who appears for the insurance company. It is submitted by him that the company has satisfied the award and deposited the entire amount of compensation as directed by the Tribunal way back in 2007 itself. What remains is only the question whether the appellant is to be given an opportunity to adduce evidence in the case on her behalf before the Tribunal. 5. It is brought to our notice that the appellant had instituted another claim petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)No.1439/2001. But that petition was dismissed as not maintainable. The appellant has preferred MACA No.1094/2010 against the said award which is also posted along with this appeal. 6. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that such an opportunity has to be afforded to the appellant. In our view, the Tribunal was not justified in shutting out her M.A.C.A.No.376 OF 2007 :: 3 :: evidence in such a peremptory manner. Therefore, the impugned award is set aside only to enable the appellant to establish her status as the second wife of the deceased as claimed by her. We hasten to add that the quantum of compensation fixed by the Tribunal or the liability fastened on the insurance company is not being disturbed by us. 7. The Tribunal shall only consider the sustainability of the claim of the appellant that she is the second wife of the deceased. If it is found that she is entitled to any share in the amount of compensation already fixed, it shall be awarded to her. Needless to mention that the claimants and the appellant shall be afforded sufficient opportunity to adduce further evidence in the case. The appellant shall appear before the Tribunal on August 3, 2010 and she shall take appropriate steps to serve notice on the claimants and the insurance company. The Tribunal shall make an earnest endeavor to dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes