IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 3RD APRIL 2009 / 13TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 961 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.2834/2003 of PRL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER IN OP(MV) --------------------------------------------- V.SHINIL, AGED 26 YEARS, S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN, RESIDING AT VELLAKKADA HOUSE, P.O.PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. BY ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV) ------------------------------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT, WOOD WORKSHOP BUILDING, PUTHIYARA, KOZHIKODE. GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. MOHAMMED ANZAR FOR R1 & R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. --------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 961 OF 2007 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant, J. The claimant before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. His claim for compensation was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned award. According to the appellant, he was picked up by the police and was travelling in the jeep. The driver of the jeep, to avert an accident swerved the jeep and the vehicle claims to have hit against a stationary object/pillar. The appellant suffered injuries. 2. The appellant claimed compensation against the owner and insurer of the jeep. Exts.A1 to A3 were marked. No other evidence, oral or documentary, was adduced. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the materials available, took note of the fact that the driver of the jeep has not been made a party at all. The contention is that the driver of the jeep swerved the vehicle to avoid collision with a lorry which was coming in the opposite direction. The insurer, the driver and the owner of the lorry were also not made parties. It is in these circumstances, that the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the petition. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant may be given one further opportunity to take all necessary steps. There has M.A.C.A. NO. 961/2007 2 been omission before the Tribunal to array the driver of the jeep as a party. We are satisfied, in the circumstances, that the prayer can be allowed. It was at worst a case of composite negligence and the appellant's claim cannot be dismissed if he did not state any claim against the driver, owner and insurer of the other vehicle. At any rate, the option was that of the claimant. Learned counsel for the respondents has made available before us, the Case Diary and it is revealed that the appellant was picked up by the police on a date of bandh alleging that he was involved in some indiscretion. He was being transported to the police station and it was at that juncture that the accident took place. We are persuaded to feel that the interest of justice demands that a further opportunity should be granted to the appellant. 4. The appeal is allowed in part. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.6.2009. The appellant shall take all necessary steps by then. The Tribunal shall dispose of the petition as expeditiously as possible. (R. BASANT) JUDGE (C.T. RAVIKUMAR) JUDGE sp/ M.A.C.A. NO. 961/2007 3 R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. M.A.C.A. NO.961/2007 JUDGMENT 3rd April, 2009