IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 187 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.121/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: -------------- ROSME(MINOR), AGED 10 YEARS, D/O.JAMES, REP. BY HER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN JAMES, AGED 39 YEARS, S/O.VARKEY, RESIDING AT MANNUPARAMBIL HOUSE, KALATHUVAYAL.P.O., AMBALAVAYAL, SULTHAN BATHERY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.A.V.JAMES SRI.P.DALBI EMMANUEL RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. MANOHARAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, S/O. RAYYAPPAN, RESIDING AT MANKOMBU HOUSE, VAZHAVATTA.P.O., MUTTIL,KALPETTA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. KALPETTA. ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R1 SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: HARUN-UL-RASHID,J. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 187 OF 2010 ------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT Advocate Sri C.A.Chacko entered appearance for the lst respondent. Advocate Sri Rajesh Thomas entered appearance for the 2nd respondent. 2. The appeal is directed against the award in O.P.(MV). No.121/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta. The claim petition was filed claiming compensation for the serious injuries sustained by the claim petitioner in a motor accident occurred on 12/1/2004. The claimant failed to adduce any evidence either oral or documentary. The learned Tribunal found that the claimant is not entitled to get the relief as sought for in the claim petition. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Insurance Company admitted the validity of the insurance policy at the time of the accident, that the injured is a school going student, -2- M.AC.A.No.187/2010 that her father could not adduce evidence at the relevant time before the Tribunal due to the reasons that he was working in Bombay during the relevant time and that he was laid up with Chickun Guniya. Since the claimant's father could not adduce any evidence due to the aforesaid reasons, the learned counsel submits that the Tribunal happened to dismissed the claim petition. The learned counsel also prays for an opportunity to contest the case on merits. 4. It is a fact that the claim petition was dismissed, since the claimant failed to adduce any evidence. In the appeal the submission of the learned counsel that the father of the claim petitioner was unable to adduce evidence during the relevant time is correct. In the interest of justice, this Court is of the view that an opportunity shall be given to the appellant for contesting the case on merits. 5. In the result, the award passed by the MACT, Kalpetta is set aside. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration in accordance with law. The Tribunal shall try and -3- M.AC.A.No.187/2010 dispose of the matter within a period of nine months from today. The parties shall appeal before the Tribunal on 25th May, 2011. Appeal is allowed as above. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge. kcv.