IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 2184 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- [OP.(MV).NO.7/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR] .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPNAY LTD., PALA, P.B.NO. 47, MAIN ROAD, PALA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/R1 & R2: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. RANJITH, S/O.SUDARSANAN, CHANDRIKA POST, MANNUTHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. OUSEPPACHAN, MUDAVANAL HOUSE, POST KALATHUR, KURAVILANGADU, PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. JOHNY SEBASTIAN, NEDUKANIYIL HOUSE, KUDAKKACHIRA, PALA, KOTTAYAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON, R2 BY ADV. SRI.PAULY MATHEW MURICKEN. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/11/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2184 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in OP(MV)No.7/2001. The claimant while riding his motor cycle met with an accident and he is alleged to have been hit by a car which has given raise to this claim petition. 2. All the respondents filed written statements denying the involvement of the car and the police after due investigation referred the case as undetected. Neither the First Information Report nor the other documents produced could throw any light on the subject of involvement of this particular car in the accident. I am sorry to state that the learned Tribunal just made an observation as follows: “From a perusal of the records ie F.I.R, wound certificate, scene mahazer and the AMVI report in the absence of any contra evidence, it is clinchingly proved that there was an accident involving the ambassador car owned by the second respondent”. 3. It has to be stated that the AMVI's report refers to : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2184 OF 2008 the motor cycle, scene mahazer does not throw light on the involvement of the car. The First Information Report does not point out that a particular car is involved in the accident. But in spite of all these things, unfortunately the learned Tribunal jumped to the conclusion that it was the car owned by the second respondent that had resulted in the accident. It cannot be sustained and therefore, it is set aside. When it is the situation, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant would submit that if an opportunity is given, he would be able to through much light on the case. 4. I find from the materials that the claimant had sustained very severe injuries in the case and therefore the benevolent legislation if confers a benefit on the claimant, it should be given to him provided he satisfies the requisites of law. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 5. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce both : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2184 OF 2008 documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.2010. If any amount is in deposit, let it not be disbursed. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.2184 OF 2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T