IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 28TH JULY 2010 / 6TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 236 of 2010(E) --------------------------- OPMV.1019/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------- SULAIKHA, W/O.SUNEER RAHMAN, AGED 22 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANGALASSERY THOTTAM HOUSE, PO.CHENNAMANGALOOR, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN SMT.LEKSHMI SWAMINATHAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------- 1. PRASANNAN C.K, S/O.C.K.KRISHNAN, AGED 49 YEARS, RESIDING AT SOUPARNIKA, CHALOD ROAD, KANNUR. 2. RASHEED T, S/O.HASSAN T AGED NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT THONDIYIL HOUSE, PO,KOLATHARA, KOZHIKODE. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, P.B.NO.52, FORT ROAD, KANNUR. ADV. SRI.P.K.MANOJKUMAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 236 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)1019/05. At the out set I may like to state that the advocate appearing for the claimants in these types of cases must be more careful and should help the Court in disposing of the case properly. I am constrained to make this remark without hearing him for the reason that so many cases have come up before me in the very same fashion. I am not making this comment as an adverse comment but a reality which should be attempted to be rectified. In Motor Accidents Claims cases the feeling that a copy of a copy of first information report is sufficient to prove the negligence is really a sorrow state of affairs. One cannot blame the Tribunal when the insurance company contends that the accident is on account of the negligence of the other vehicle involved in the accident. Here it is a case of a collision between an auto rickshaw and M.A.C.A. 236 OF 2010 -:2:- a maruthi omni. The claim is made against the maruthi omni and the insurance company of the maruthi omni would contend that the negligence is on the part of the auto rickshaw driver. So for an effective and proper adjudication it is better to have all the parties in the array. I do not want to elaborate further but I am inclined to grant an opportunity. Therefore 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 owner, driver and the insurance company of the auto rickshaw as well and then produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of the contentions. Needless to say the other parties be permitted to raise their contentions and adduce evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.9.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-