IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 65 of 2002(B) -------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.182/1992 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA. .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BADAGARA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA). RESPONDENT/ CLAIMANT: -------------------------------------- 1. P. AMMED, S/O. IBRAHIM, PATHAYAKKODAN HOUSE, CHENNALODE, KAVUMANNAM, CHENNALODE AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. 2. KANAKKASSERY MUHAMMED, FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, NEAR SAW MILL, PADINHARATHARA, PADINHARATHARA AMSOM DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK. * 3. KARUVINKKANDY GOVINDAN, ULLIERI P.O., QUILANDY. *R3. IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DATED 19/11/07 IN I.A. 2660/07. BY THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.F.A. NO. 65/2002-B: ORDER ON C.M.P. NO. 301/2002 IN M.F.A. NO. 65/2002-B DISMISSED 14/11/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MFA No.65 OF 2002 ===================== Dated this the 14th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)No.182 of 1992. It is the case of the claimant that while he was walking along the road a tractor came and hit on him resulting in injuries to him. The insurance Company has disputed the accident itself and would contend that the claimant had sustained injuries on account of a fall on the road. No witness was examined. The documents produced are a copy of the first information report, a scene mahazar and two photographs. I do not know how the learned Tribunal was able to arrive at a decision that the accident had taken place and that it was on account of the negligence of the driver and further that he suffers serious injuries and then awarded compensation. The whole approach of the Tribunal is totally erroneous and that is why I am inclined to remand the case back to the Tribunal though it is a matter of the year 1992. It is true that in motor accident cases being a beneficial legislation technicality shall not be insisted. But when a matter is dealt with at least the Tribunal has to satisfy MFA 65/2002 -:2:- its conscience regarding the truthfulness of the accident, the nature of injuries and then award compensation. Such an approach is totally lacking in this case and therefore I set aside the aware and remit the case back to the Tribunal. Since respondents have not entered appearance in this appeal I direct the insurance company to issue notice to the claimant as well as to the respondents in the claim petition and then permit all the parties to adduce evidence both oral and documentary in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The insurance company shall appear on 29.12.2008 and then take out notice to the claimant as well as to the respondents. Thereafter the matter shall be disposed of in accordance with law. If there is any amount lying in court deposit, it shall remain there until the case is finally disposed of. MFA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-