IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 221 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.1526/2004 of PRL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ JASEENA K.C, AGED 20 YEARS D/O. ISMAIL, RESIDING AT NASBEEJA MANZIL, MUTTANCHERY , P.O.NARIKUNI, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. MR.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.PRAISHEEL PRAKASAM SMT.BEATRICE FERIA RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNAKUMAR.M., AGED NOT KNOWN RESIDING AT MARIVEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.KIZHAKKOTH, (VIA) KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NOOR COMPLEX , MAVOOR ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R2 BY ADV. MR.LAL GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.221 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.1526/2004. I have time and again come across the award passed by the Tribunal wherein the Tribunal suspects everything and ultimately lands into confusion and gives verdict which cannot be substantiated. 2. In this case, the claimant was a passenger in an auto rickshaw. She moved an application for compensation against the owner, driver and the insurer. The case alleged is that the driver of the bus had hit on the auto rickshaw and it was on account of the negligence of the driver, the accident took place. One can understand that the Tribunal arriving at a decision on some materials to hold that the accident had taken place on account of the composite negligence. But here the reason given by the Tribunal is since the owner, driver and the insurance company of the auto rickshaw is not impleaded as parties and as materials are : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.221 OF 2009 not sufficient, it casts the liability of 50% on the bus driver and ultimately when an award is passed it has given a go bye to that 50% and has written "in the interest of justice, I am not reducing 50% of the compensation". 3. I am afraid, the court of law is bound by the mandate of law and discretion has to emanate from law and it cannot be arbitrarily exercised by any authority. After finding the negligenceM.A.C.A.NO.1811 OF 2008 at 50%, no power is left with the Tribunal not to reduce the compensation. So, on all aspects, the award is not proper and it requires interference at the hand of the court. The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the claimant as well as the other parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 30.11.2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.221 OF 2009 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.221 OF 2009