IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2026 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1261/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANTS/ADDL. RESPONDENTS 2 TO 7 ------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSAMMA, W/O. JOHN, THATTAKULANGARA HOUSE, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. JAISY JOHN, PUTHUPPARAMBIL HOUSE, PONKUNNAM POST, KOTTAYAM. 3. JINCY JOHN, NEDIYAKALAYIL, KANAKARY, KOTTAYAM. 4. JASMINE, THATTUKULANGARA HOUSE, KURUMULLOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. JOBY JOHN T., -DO- -DO- 6. JOSIN JOHN, -DO- -DO- BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.K.VASU, ANOOP BHAVAN, THALAYOLAPARAMBU P.O., KOTTAYAM. 2. V.D.SASIDHARAN, VELLAPPALLY, VYKAPRAYAR P.O., VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM. 3. THE KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, TRIVANDRUM. ADV. SRI.A.K.HARIDAS FOR R1 & 2 SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR, STANDING COUNSEL FOR KSRTC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ***************************** M.A.C.A No.2026 of 2007 ***************************** Dated this the 18th day of January 2010 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimants are the appellants. Originally the predecessor of the claimants was the claimant before the Tribunal. He expired during the pendency of O.P before the Tribunal. It is accordingly that additional claimant Nos.2 to 7, the appellants before us, were impleaded in the claim petition. 2. The accident was disputed. The court below took the view in the impugned award that the accident has not been proved. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants contends that the view taken by the Tribunal is not fair, just and correct. Broad probabilities were ignored by the Tribunal altogether. The total improbability, nay, impossibility of a false claim being staked against the K.S.R.T.C which does not have a reputation for settling claims or promptly honouring contested awards passed by Courts/Tribunals was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal at all, laments the learned counsel for the appellants. The learned counsel for the appellants further M.A.C.A No.2026 of 2007 2 submits that a perusal of the documents produced would show that as early as on 23.07.2002, the original claimant was taken to the Matha Hospital. This renders the whole version of the claimant probable and convincing. Mind has not at all been applied to this aspect by the Tribunal, contends the learned counsel for the appellants. 4. The learned counsel for the appellants further submits that the court below did not appreciate the significance of inaction of the K.S.R.T.C on getting the suit notice Ext.A4 which was duly acknowledged under Ext.A4(a). The learned counsel for the appellant submits that in the wake of the specific contentions raised by the claimants that the deceased was taken in the same bus to the Matha hospital and refund of the ticket was made to all passengers, the burden was heavy on the owner of the vehicle - K.S.R.T.C to show how the particular trip was terminated. There must have been documents with the K.S.R.T.C to prove this aspect. The non production of those documents in the light of the improbable conduct of not responding to Ext.A4 suit notice was omitted to be taken note of by the Tribunal, argues the learned counsel for the appellants. The Tribunal should have seen that there is no attempt to show M.A.C.A No.2026 of 2007 3 that respondents 1 and 2 were the employees in that trip. With no motives whatsoever it was idle to swallow the version that claimant had made a fanciful false claim against the respondents. 5. The learned Standing Counsel for the K.S.R.T.C, Sri.Nandagopal Nambiar, prays that opportunity may be given to the K.S.R.T.C to produce further material in support of the denial of the accident by the respondents. The learned counsel for the appellants also prays for opportunity to adduce appropriate further evidence in the matter. 6. We are, in these circumstances, satisfied that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the Tribunal must be directed to dispose of the case afresh in accordance with law after affording the parties opportunity to adduce further evidence, if any, in support of their respective contentions. Such a course, we are satisfied, shall cater to the ends of justice ideally. 7. We take note of the fact that the accident had taken place as early as on 23.07.2002. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that specific directions must be issued for expeditious disposal of O.P.No.1261 of 2003 after remand. M.A.C.A No.2026 of 2007 4 8. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is set aside; c) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P.No.1261 of 2003 afresh in accordance with law after giving the parties sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence; d) The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 01.03.2010. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh as expeditiously as possible - at any rate, within a period of two months from 01.03.2010. All necessary steps shall be taken by the rival contestants by 01.03.2010 or within the further time that may be granted by the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/-