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. 614 of 2010() ----------------------------- OPMV.784/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): CLAIMANT ------------------------------ NITHINRAJ, S/O. MOHANAN, AGED 21, PUTHUKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O. KARUVISSERY, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. MATHAI CYRIAC, S/O.N.C. MATHEW, NEAR SREEKRISHNALAYAM, EAST NAGAR, PONDICHERRY. 2. SAHIR, S/O. ABDURAHIMAN, NUNDANKANDI PARAMBRA, P.O. ERANHIKKAL, KOZHIKODE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, WHITELINES BUILDINGS, KALLAI ROAD, KOZHIKODE. R3 BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.614 OF 2010 ............................................. 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, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.784/2005. Again this is a case where justice is a casualty on account of the conduct of the parties especially the applicant. According to the applicant, while he was riding as a pillion rider, a car came and hit on the motor cycle resulting in injuries to him. The insurance company would contend that it was the applicant who was riding the motor bike and he was only aged 17 years and he did not have any valid driving licence. Unfortunately except the FIR as usual, no accidental documents were produced before the Tribunal and no evidence has been adduced. Therefore the Tribunal has been very harsh on the claimant's lawyer and it was unnecessary on the part of the court to make observations just as made in para-10 first sentence. It will tell upon an individual without hearing him and therefore I am expunching those portions from the award in the interest of : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.614 OF 2010 the institution and substantial justice. I am not going to hold that the claimant was prudent in conducting the litigation. Really he was not prudent and he did not produce the relevant materials for a proper disposal of the case. The reasons for these type of cases had come across before me in very many cases and so I don't elaborate. I feel justice shall not be a casualty and therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 2. 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 documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter let the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The claimant is also directed to take out notice to respondents 1 and 2 after he enters appearance before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.614 OF 2010 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.614 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T