IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH JANUARY 2011 / 27TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 81 of 2010(B) --------------------- OPMV.1587/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.CHATHU, PLAVIDA HOUSE, ANNANAD P.O., CHALAKKUDY, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR.P.G., FACT, QUARTERS NO.15, UDYOGAMANDAL P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN, S/O.RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, NALINI MANDIRAM HOUSE, CHOORNIKKARA, THAIKKATTUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PUMP JUNCTION ALUVA P.O., PIN-683101, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR G3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 81 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of January, 2011. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)1587/04. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding on a motorbike an auto rickshaw came and hit on his back resulting in injuries to him. He had sustained a fracture on the finger. The Tribunal held that the claimant has not proved the negligence and therefore dismissed the case. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. It is true that the alleged accident took place on 24.6.04 but he was admitted in the hospital only M.A.C.A. 81 OF 2010 -:2:- on 26.6.04 and as the A.M.V.I. report was not produced the Tribunal non suited the claimant. The Tribunal did not give any credence or reliance to the other document namely the charge sheet in the case. The charge sheet is the outcome of an investigation and therefore the Tribunal should not have slightly brushed it aside and further PW1 also is examined to prove the factum of negligence. So I feel this is a matter which requires detailed consideration. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In any event, even if the claimant is entitled to any compensation he will M.A.C.A. 81 OF 2010 -:3:- not be entitled to get interest on the said amount from 11.2.08 to 14.12.09. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.2.2011. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-