IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2008 / 6TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 506 of 2007(F) ---------------------- OP(MV) NO.331/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT IN OP(MV): ----------------------------- SHAJI THOMAS, PLATHOTTATHIL, MUKKOOTTUTHARA P.O., KALLAMULA. BY ADV. SRI.THOMAS M.JACOB SRI.G.RAJAGOPAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): --------------------------------- 1. JOSEPH JOSEPH, MADICKANKAL, PALAMPRA P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. DYES JOSE, MADICKANKAL, PALAMPRA P.O., KANJIRAPPALLY. 3. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISION NO.10, FLAT NO.101-106, N-1, BMC HOUSE, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 506 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 28th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 331/04. It is the case of the claimant that he is a videographer by profession and while he was returning after video taping a marriage function, he got involved in an accident whereby he had sustained injuries and his camera was also damaged. Immediately after the accident he had given first information statement which will indicate that he is a videographer by profession. He has also stated that “ .” He had also produced Ext.A13 to indicate that he had effected repairs to the camera. The Tribunal rejected the claim on the ground that he has not succeeded in proving that he is the owner of the camera and further he has not proved Ext.A13 by examining the person who had issued it. 2. From the first information statement, it is seen that he is a videographer by profession and that his camera has been damaged in the accident. It may not proper to technically throw out a MACA No.506/07 2 claim. Therefore, I feel that an opportunity can be given to the appellant to adduce evidence to establish that it was his camera which was damaged in the accident and that he had effected repairs to it. The Tribunal can dispose of the matter, after hearing all concerned. Insurance Company as well as the appellant are permitted to produce both documentary or oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.506/07 3