IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 MACA.No. 365 of 2007 ------------------------------ OPMV.1483/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI ................................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANJERI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER ------------------------------------------ NARAYANAN.V.T., S/O.RAMAN, VALLIKATHODY, VANIYAMBALAM P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.365 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 9th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the insurance company after getting permission under section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contest the case on merit. The claimant met with an accident in a motor accident. While he was riding a motor cycle, an autorickshaw driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner came from the opposite side and dashed against the Motor Cycle. According to the appellant insurance company, the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the rider of the motor cycle who was not even having a driving licence. Since the accident occurred due to the sole negligence of the claimant, insurance company or insured is not liable to pay compensation. But, Tribunal at paragraph 6 stated that since the driver of the vehicle insured by the appellant insurance company was charge-sheeted, he is negligent. But, Tribunal did not consider at all Ext.B1 scene mahazar and Ext.B2 charge-sheet. Ext.B2 charge-sheet shows that the claimant was not having a driving licence to drive a motor cycle. According to the appellant, Ext.B1 scene mahazar also shows that the claimant also was not riding the motor cycle on his correct side and at least these materials ought to have been considered. Since it is a head-on-collision, it is MACA.365/2007 2 argued that at least 50% negligence ought to have been attributed on the claimant. We are of the view that non-consideration of the documents produced by the insurance company is a serious defect in the award. The award shows that documents produced by the appellant insurance company were not considered at all and the finding that there is no contra evidence is also against the facts. Therefore, we set aside the award and remand the matter for fresh consideration on the question of negligence aspect and consequently quantum of compensation payable to the claimant. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 10.3.2008. Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks