IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 2125 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.957/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------- XAVIER.P.V., S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O., THOTTUVA. BY ADV. SRI.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- 1. JOY.P.V., PUTHUSSERY HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR P.O., THOTTUVA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALUVA. BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2125 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)No.957 of 2001. It was the case of the petitioner that while he was travelling as pillion rider in a motor cycle driven by his brother, a scooter hit on the back side of the cycle on account of the rash and negligent driving of the scooter which resulted in sustainment of injuries to him. He has claimed compensation on that basis. 2. The Tribunal on appreciation of the materials arrived at a decision that it was the claimant who has riding the scooter and dismissed the application. Before the Tribunal, the first information statement, the charge sheet, etc. had been produced. The first information statement is given on the next day of the accident by the claimant, wherein he has described himself to be a pillion rider. A charge sheet is also filed attributing charge against the first respondent in the claim application. The Tribunal found fault for the reason that in the wound certificate it is only written on account of the skidding of the scooter. It does not indicate that who had driven the scooter at the relevant time. The Tribunal also felt that there is no damage MACA 2125/2006 -:2:- to the cycle and that also is a reason for finding that the claimant was riding the scooter. I feel such an approach cannot be made under suspicious circumstances. If there are valid documents available on one side, the court cannot jump to a conclusion on surmises and conjectures. 3.Therefore I feel the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Similarly, the insurance company has defended action on the assumption that it was the claimant who had riding the scooter. If it is to be a pillion rider, then other contentions are also available to the insurance company. Therefore I permit the insurance company to file additional written statement regarding the liability portion as well. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and both parties are permitted to amend the pleadings and produce documentary evidence as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.7.2008. MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 2125/2006 -:3:-