IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 531 of 2003(P) ----------------------- OPMV.2272/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER IN O.P.(MV)NO.2272/96. ------------------------------------------------------------ MR. P.D. PRAKASAN, S/O.DAMODARAN, PONNANTHARA HOUSE, VETTACKAL P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.K.JANARDHANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENT IN O.P.(MV)NO.2272/96 ----------------------------------------------------- *1. M.C. THOMAS, MANJOLI HOUSE, METHALA P.O., KODUNGALLOOR. (R1 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER AS PER ORDER DT. 24.10.07 IN I.A. NO.2399/07) (ORDER IN I.A. NO.2399/07 IS RECALLED AND RESTORED AS PER ORDER DT. 12.3.08 IN I.A. 573/08) 2. K.A. HASSAN, S/O. ALAVI, KIZHAKKEVALAPPIL, MANJALI DESOM, KARUMALLOOR VILLAGE, PARAVOOR NORTH. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., VADAKKANCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 531 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) 2272/96. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the application filed by him before the Tribunal for compensation has been dismissed. Aggrieved by that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. After hearing the learned counsel for both sides and after perusing the award, I feel this is a fit case where the matter requires reconsideration so as to satisfy the conscience of the court regarding the actual involvement of the vehicle. The whole trouble is on the basis of the change in the registration number of the vehicle in the pleadings and in the documents. The real vehicle involved in the accident is KL-9/6480 as per the documents. But unfortunately the pleaded case is that the vehicle involved in the accident is KL- 9/6840. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that it was a mistake. But this is a fact which can be proved by so many MACA No. 531/03 2 circumstances and even the court below has observed that the production of AMVI's report would have explained the situation. So I feel this is a fit case where the award passed by the Tribunal can be set aside and the matter be remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording opportunity to all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal can dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since I have dispensed with notice to the 1st respondent / owner of the vehicle if ultimately the Insurance Company is to be exonerated on some grounds, it is desirable that the claimant takes notice to the owner from the Tribunal before disposal of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.11.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 531/03 3