IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST NOVEMBER 2010 / 10TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 2992 of 2009(D) ---------------------------- OPMV.450/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- VINJU RAJ, AGED 25 YEARS, S/O.GOPALAN MARATHUVALAPPIL HOUSE, P.O.MUTTIL, WAYANAD DT BY ADV. SMT.CELINE JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------- 1. MUHAMMED SALIM, S/O.IBRAHIM PONNANCHALIL HOUSE,ALLETHARA, KODUVALLY DRIVER THE KL-12-9324 JEEP) 2. MR.MOIDEENKUTTY METHALPANNALKODE,VALIYAPARAMBA KODUVALLY PO, KODUVALLY, CALICUT (RC OWNER OF KL-129324 JEEP) 3. DIVISIONAL MANAGER NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD CALICUT DO-11,P.B.NO.BII NOOR COMPLEX, MAVOOR ROAD, NEAR ARAVIDATH PALAM CALICUT, (POLICE NO.570301/2002/6105927) INSURER OF THE VEHICLE, KL-12-9324 JEEP) ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2992 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV) 450/08. The claimant, a passenger in a jeep, sustained injuries in a road accident when it collided with another jeep. The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to get 50% of the amount of Rs.9,250/- and it is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. At the out set I may like to state that the award has been written in the most unsatisfactory manner. When a petition is filed u/s 166 M.V.Act the Court is bound to conduct an enquiry on the negligence and then answer the issues. Here the question is answered holding that nobody has adduced any oral evidence and that two moving vehicles were involved in an accident and therefore 50% of the negligence has to M.A.C.A. 2992 OF 2009 -:2:- be attributed. This is not a correct approach of law. Here, one has to blame the claimant also because he did not step into the box, he did not produce the charge sheet and the scene mahazar produced is of no help to decide the question of negligence. It has also to be stated when it is contended that the other driver is also negligent in order to find out the question of negligence the driver, owner and the insurance company of that vehicle should also have been impleaded. Therefore the award requires interference. 3. Hence the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the claimant to implead the driver, owner and the insurer of the other jeep and also permit them to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are permitted to adduce evidence and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. M.A.C.A. 2992 OF 2009 -:3:- The claimant is directed to take out notice to the owner and driver for a proper disposal of the matter. It is also made clear since the matter is going back the question of enhancement also can be considered by the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- Number “O.P.(MV)450/08” occurring in lines 2 and 3 of page 1 of the judgment is corrected and substituted as “O.P.(MV)450/2003” as per order dated 06/12/2010 in I.A.3174/2010 in M.A.C.A. 2992/2009.