IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2010 / 17TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 20 of 2010(A) --------------------------- OPMV.309/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OPMV ------------------------------------------- AYYAPPAN NAIR @ MANI, AGED 59, S/O. KESAVAN NAIR, KAYATH HOUSE, IRINGOLE KARA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.V.K.GOPALAKRISHNA PILLAI SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) 309/06: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. GOPALAN.K.V., S/O. UNNY, DOOR NO.30/377, KESHAKKATHUNDATHIL (KARULI PARAMBU), PUNITHURA VILLAGE, PUNITHARA KARA, PETTA BHAGAM, VATTATHARA ROAD. 2. NEW INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THE DIVISIONAL OFFICE, JEEVANPRAKASH, 8TH FLOOR, L.I.C, COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-682011. ADV. SRI.N.C.MOHANAN FOR R1 SRI.T.P.RAMACHANDRAN (THACHETH) FOR R1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 20 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)309/06. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle and when it reached the place of accident, a jeep from the opposite direction came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against it resulting in injuries to him. But the the Tribunal found it otherwise and held that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the rider of the bike and therefore dismissed the claim petition. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for all. The facts of the case would reveal that the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider and when it reached the place of accident there was a collision between the motorcycle and the jeep. The Tribunal found that the claimant's motor bike was proceeding from M.A.C.A. 20 OF 2010 -:2:- west to east and its correct side was northern side. The road was having a width of 10 mtrs. and the accident had taken place about 2.15 mtrs. north of the southern tarred end. Therefore the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the motorcyclist had gone to the wrong side and therefore negligence can be attributed on the motorcyclist. The police after investigation had filed a charge against the jeep driver. It can also be seen from the scene mahazar itself that the road is having a straight vision of two hundred mts. Further it has always to be remembered that when an accident is about to take place the foremost thing in the mind of the persons would be to avert the accident and in the process they may swerve the vehicle one way or other. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that the motorcyclist was going to the other side for the purpose of turning and it was in that process the accident took place. But unfortunately I do not find any witnesses or even the claimant being examined in the case to prove the factum of negligence. So in that aspect the matter requires M.A.C.A. 20 OF 2010 -:3:- reconsideration. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that he may be permitted to implead the rider of the motorcycle as well as the insurance company and owner. It can also be permitted to do justice to the claimant. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside making it clear that I am not expressing anything on merits regarding the negligence and permit the parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. I also permit the claimant to implead the rider, owner and insurer of the motorcycle also in the party array and the matter be disposed of after hearing all concerned. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.8.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-