IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 20TH OCTOBER 2010 / 28TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 533 of 2008() --------------------- OPMV.386/2003 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR ............... APPELLANT / RESPONDENT NO. 2: ------------------------------------------------- M/S.UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, AMBADI BUILDING, C.V.JUNCTION, PONNANI P.O., NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARANYA, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI. S. MAMMU RESPONDENTS / PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO. 1: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AKBAR T., S/O.MOHAMMED KARUPPAM VEETTIL, P.O. PONNANI SOUTH. 2. ASHOKAN T.S, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, THERAYIL HOUSE, SIYARATHUM PALLY, NEAR M.E.S. COLLEGE P.O., PONNANI SOUTH. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- MACA.No. 533 of 2008() -2- ORDER ON I.A. NO. 654/2008 IN MACA. NO. 533/2008 DISMISSED 20/10/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.533 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 20th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal , Tirur in OP.(MV)No.386/2003. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding on a motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL.10J.9802 and when he reached Chamravattom junction, a motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KL.10M.892 came from the opposite direction and hit on his bike resulting in injuries to him. 2. On the other hand, the insurance company of the respondents' would contend that no such accident had taken place and the police has referred the case as undetected and false. It is interesting to note that in spite of such a contention, no oral evidence is adduced in the matter. No charge sheet is produced. Reference report is also not produced by either of the parties. These are all very relevant matters which would have decided the case finally. Mere F.I. Statement cannot be a substitute for evidence especially in the backdrop when it is submitted that the case : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.533 OF 2008 has been referred by the police. The insurance company also should have taken care to produce such documents. It is submitted by the learned counsel that a petition was moved in that direction, but that was not entertained by the Tribunal. So the whole matter requires a fresh consideration and 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 then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the claimant had not entered appearance before this Court, let notice be taken out to the claimant as well as to the first respondent in the OP(MV) by the insurance company after it enters appearance before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.11.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.533 OF 2008 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.533 OF 2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T