IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 25TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1504 of 2009(C) ----------------------- OPMV.2378/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- K.SHAJI, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT KONEKKAL HOUSE, CHIRAKUZHI PADANNA P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) : ------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJESH, KONNEKKAL HOUSE, P.O.CHALAPPURAM, KOZHIKODE. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1504 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)2378/04. At the out set I may like to state that the claim petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands and even he has refused to divulge the father's name of R1 and it is stated that the father's name is not shown in the petition itself. This R1 is none other than his own brother. This shows the level to which things are degrading Claims Tribunals constituted under the provisions of the M.V.Act being a benevolent legislation does not guarantee any compensation in cases where even the elementary principles are not complied with. Here the strange position is a petition is filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act attributing negligence on the rider of the bike but even without impleading him. The Apex Court has made it very clear now that u/s 166 of the M.V.Act junction of the rider is necessary. It is true that in some M.A.C.A. 1504 OF 2009 -:2:- cases when the accident and policy are admitted and the principle of res ipsa loquitor applies on the question of negligence, the Courts have dispensed with the junction of the driver. That does not mean that it is a universal principle that all S.166 motor accident cases are tried without the rider being a party. Not even a scrap of paper to prove that there was a motor accident is produced in this case. Just because a person sustained injury it does not ipso facto establish that it was on account of the road accident and that the accident was due to the negligence of the rider. Further to crown all these things the claimant had not even mounted the box to give evidence. So less said about the better and I do not find any mistake committed by the Tribunal in dismissing the application. So the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-