IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 30TH JUNE 2008 / 9TH ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 325 of 2007(A) ---------------------- (OPMV.586/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD) .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- KORAGAPPA, AGED 43 YEARS, S/O. AMMU POOJARY, PALLAROM HOUSE, PANAYAL VILLAGE & POST, HOSDURG TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.M.SASINDRAN SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. NARAYANAN C., AGED 54 YEARS, S/O. KORAGAN, RESIDING AT CHEDIKUNDU, BEDADKA VILLAGE AND POST, KASARGOD TALUK (VIA) CHENGALA, C/O. K.T.NARAYANAN, KUNNUCHI HOUSE, POST PANAYAL, VIA BEKAL-671 318. 2. N.K.CHANDRA SHOBHA, D/O. P.N.RAMACHANDRAN, 'SHARADA', MANGATPARAMB, P.O.KALLIASSERY, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., , BRANCH OFFICE, MARINE SHOPPING CENTRE, N.H., TALIPARAMBA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV.SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/06/2008, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.602/2007, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.Nos. 325/2007 & 602/2007 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of June, 2008 J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the awards of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in O.P.(MV) 586/2004 and O.P.(MV) 587/2004. The main grievances of the appellants are that the Tribunal has considered them as passengers in a lorry that to gratuitous passengers and decided the case where as in para 27 or the application filed by them it is specifically stated “the petitioner was walking through the road margin. The lorry after hitting him and one Moideen overturned to the nearby ditch”. So the specific contentions of the claimants in these cases are to the effect that they were pedestrians who were hit by the lorry which overturned on account of negligent driving of its driver. Therefore it is a matter which requires consideration. I am informed by the learned counsel for the appellants, these cases were tried along with O.P. 506/2004 and 655/2004 wherein the claimants were traveling in the lorry. The Tribunal jointly tried the cases and had come to the conclusion that all were gratutitous passengers in the lorry and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. Unfortunately the claimants did not tender any oral evidence to establish their case. There is no point of issuance of notice in these cases and bring the respondents to this court for the reason that the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. Since the claimants have been partly responsible for the mistake I am directing them to take fresh summons to other respondents in their respective O.P. Therefore the awards under challenge in O.P. 586/04 and 587/04 are set aside and the cases were remanded back to the Tribunal to consider the question whether the appellants herein were pedestrians who were hit by the lorry in the accident. For the said purpose all parties are directed to produce documentary as well as oral evidences in respect of their contentions. Appellants herein directed to take notice to the respondents for further proceeding with the matter. The appellants are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal on 5.8.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm