IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 8TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 1520 of 2006() ----------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 12/01/2006 IN OPMV.2874/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAN @ JAYACHANDRAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY NAIR, PATTATHIL HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU, P.O.ADATT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. SHIBU, S/O.RAJAN, VADAKKATH HOUSE, P.O.CHITTATTUKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SUNILKUMAR, S/O.SANKARAN, KUNNATH HOUSE, UDALAKKAVU P.O., ADATT, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.CHITAMBARESH FOR R1. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R1. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA NO.1520/2006 ORDER ON I.A.NO.1764/2006 IN MACA NO.1520/2006 DISMISSED. 30/09/2008 SD/- (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. jg M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1520 of 2006 --------------------------------- Dated, this the 30th day of September, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(M.V.) No.2874/2000. The claimant is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident while he was traveling as a pillion rider in a motor cycle. The Tribunal found in his favour and awarded a compensation of Rs.44,020/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. I am surprised to see that the Tribunal has passed the award in a case of this nature where even the basic document, namely the wound certificate is not available. There is no police case also. Only a discharge summary without date is produced as seen from the appendix and it has been taken as Magna Carta for arriving on a decision. I feel, this approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and when an MACA No.1520/2006 -2- application is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is imperative on the part of the claimant to establish that he had been involved in the accident and had sustained injuries on account of the negligence of the rider of the offending vehicle. The mere oral assertion of the claimant shall not be taken as sufficient evidence, when it is not supported by other documents, in motor accident claim cases. I do not want to further elaborate, because I find the award requires interference and it has to be set aside. I also permit the Insurance Company to raise the contention regarding the act only policy as well as the absence of driving licence, which can be properly met by the claimant as well as by the owner and rider of the vehicle, if they want to do so. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration by permitting the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in MACA No.1520/2006 -3- accordance with law. I also make it clear that the Insurance Company is permitted to raise the question of the act only policy as well in this case. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25/11/2008. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) jg