IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 26TH JUNE 2008 / 5TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 654 of 2003() -------------------------------- OPMV.2552/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- SHAJI C.P. S/O. POULOSE, CHITTETHU HOUSE CHERIYA VAPPALASSERY, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL SMT.K.P.SREELATHA RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. M.V.DEVASSY, MOOLAN HOUSE, ANGAMALY 2. C.P.BABU, S/O. POULOSE, CHIOTTETHU HOUSE, CHERIYA VAPPASSERY, ANGAMALY 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD, S.M.SHOPPING CENTRE, ALWAYE ROAD, ANGAMALY. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH - SC-R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.654 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 26th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)No.2552 of 1996. The claimant, viz.C.P.Shaji alleges that he sustained injuries in an accident. It is submitted that while he was travelling in a bus, due to negligent driving the bus skidded resulting in injuries to him and therefore he has claimed compensation. The alleged accident is on 4.12.1995. The FIR is registered only on 17.6.1996, that too on the basis of a private complaint filed by the claimant. The Police has registered the FIR, conducted the investigation and filed a charge sheet which would indicate that on investigation, it is revealed that while the claimant was travelling in the bus, the bus skidded and a branch of the tree puts through the glass and hit him another person resulting in juries to them. The Tribunal was not satisfied with the documents available and the factum of delay in registering an FIR by almost 6 months tempted the Tribunal to dismiss the case. Learned counsel for the appellant had produced some documents for perusal before me. The MACA 654/2003 -:2:- document would show that the hospitalization is on 5.12.1995 as well as on 6.12.1995. When a person is injured in an accident, necessarily he would have been treated on the very same day unless there are telling circumstances and some records to prove that factor. Unless the accident and injury are interconnected, the Tribunal may not be able to give compensation. Similarly another person who was involved in the accident is also not examined before the Tribunal. At least some police officials should have been examined to prove how the examination was conducted. These are all the lacuna in prosecuting the case. Therefore I grant him an opportunity. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The appellant as well as the insurance company are permitted to adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Tribunal, on analysis can arrive at a decision in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.8.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-