IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 27TH JULY 2010 / 5TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 177 of 2009(D) ---------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.1928/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- MINOR AJITH, AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.RAJESH, KUMBANKUZHAKKAL HOUSE, KILIYINIKKADAVU, KONDAZHY P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY NEXT FRIEND/FATHER RAJESH, S/O.KESAVAN. BY ADVS. SRI.K.B.MOHANDAS, SRI.LELLULAL T.G.THUNDATHIL, SRI.M.R.DHANIL. RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. P.KRISHNANKUTTY, PRACHINKAYIL HOUSE, MAYANNOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. VIJAYAKUMAR, AGED 37 YEARS, S/O.APPU, MELEKULAMBIL HOUSE, SOUTH KONDAZHI, P.O.KONDAZHY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, JRJ COMPLEX, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. No. 177 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = == = DATED THIS, THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in O.P. (M.V) No. 1928 of 2002. The claimant, a minor, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal fixed a total compensation of Rs. 33,000/- and granted a compensation of Rs.24,750/- holding that the auto driver had contributed to the accident. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. I am surprised to see two conflicting findings in the same award. The Tribunal raised an issue as Issue No.1 and held that the accident had taken place due to the rash and negligent driving of the tractor by the second respondent. Then the Tribunal goes on discussing the compensation entitlement and while coming to Issue No.4 in paragraph 14, makes a finding that the driver of the auto has also contributed to the accident of 25%. First of all, there cannot be two such findings in the very same award. Secondly, when the auto driver was found negligent, the court should have directed the claimant to implead the driver of the auto rickshaw and entered into a finding with his presence. That is also not done. So, the finding is not supported by th legal MACA 177/2009 2 principles and therefore, it requires interference. 3. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside, the mater is remitted back to the Tribunal with permission to the claimant to implead the owner, driver and insurer of the auto rickshaw. The Tribunal can frame appropriate issues permitting both sides to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their contentions and then dispose of the case in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the court below on 7.9.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-