IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 23RD JULY 2010 / 1ST SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1142 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.732/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ VIJAYAKUMARI, 51 YEARS, W/O.PADMANABHAN, CHAMATHA KUNDIL HOUSE, MANGALAM POST, LAKKIDI, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.R.SREEHARI RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. MRS.SAHIRA KASEEM, PONNANGAYIL HOUSE, CHAKKALAKUNDU ROAD, PALAPPURAM POST, OTTAPALAM TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE II, PRAMOD BUILDING, CHEROOTTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE-1. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 1142 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 23, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the claimant in OP(MV) 732/2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. She filed the OP under Sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.1,25,000/- for the damages caused to her building in a motor accident which occurred on January 22, 2007 at about 11 a.m. 2. Claimant is the owner of the building bearing Door No.2/586 of Lakkidi-Perur Village. The work of the building was in progress. At that time a vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL51/551 which was engaged in removing machineries from the building, hit the front two pillars of the building causing damage to the building. Respondent No.1 was the owner and Respondent No.2 was the insurer of the said vehicle at that time. Respondents 1 and 2 though admitted the accident and policy of the offending vehicle, denied the liability. 3. PW.1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A10 were marked on the side of the claimant. Exts.B1 to B3 were marked on the side of the respondents before the Tribunal. On an appreciation of evidence the Tribunal found that the claimant has failed to prove that the M.A.C.A. 1142 of 2010 2 accident occurred due to negligence of the driver of the vehicle and dismissed the OP. The claimant has challenged the said finding of the Tribunal in this OP. 4. Heard counsel for the appellant. No notice was issued to the respondents as, on going through the judgment, we felt that even without issuing notice to the respondents this appeal can be disposed of. 5. On going through the award of the Tribunal and the evidence of PW.1 and the documents produced by her, we find no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal. The driver was not made a party in the OP. Regarding the alleged accident, the police has not registered any case. Except the interested version of PW.1, there is no evidence to show that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the alleged vehicle. Therefore we are of the view that the Tribunal is perfectly justified in holding that the claimant has failed to prove that the accident occurred due to alleged negligence of the driver of the vehicle and dismissing the OP. That being so, we find no merit in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-