IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 4TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 15TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 21 of 2007 ------------------------ OPMV.562/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(MV): ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. DHORA S/O.PONMALA, AGED 32 YEARS, NAYAKATHAR SCHOOL MEDU, PAYYALLUR, KOLLENGODE, CHITUR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. SANTHOSH (MINOR) S/O.DHORA, AGED 10 YEARS, RESIDING AT NAYAKATHARA SCHOOL MEDU PAYYALLUR, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR THALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS FATHER AND NEXT FRIEND DHORA. BY ADV. SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 IN O.P.(MV): ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMAKRISHNAN, S/O.KANDAMUTHAN, AGED 36 YEARS, MATUPARA, NENMARA, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. T.N.S.MOHAN, S/O.T.P.NADESAN, AGE NOT KNOWN, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD. 3. M/S.THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., G.B. ROAD, PALAKKAD. 4. THAYU, W/O CHINNAN, AGED 66 YEARS, NAYAKATHARA, PAYYALLUR, KOLLENGODE, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISRICT. 5. KUTTAYIL, S/O.LATE CHINNAN, AGED 48 YEARS, DO. DO. 6. RAJAN, S/O.LATE CHINNAN, AGED 46 YEARS, DO. DO. 7. THANKAMANI, D/O LATE CHINNAN, DO. DO. 8. LAKSHMI, D/O.LATE CHINNAN, DO. DO. ADV. SRI.SAJEEV KUMAR K.GOPAL FOR R1 & 2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A. K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 21 of 2007-A - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 4th day of February, 2010. Judgment Basheer, J: This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Moor Accidents' Claims Tribunal, Palakkad dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellants on the ground that another Claim Petition filed by the parents of the deceased was already pending consideration before another Tribunal. 2. Admittedly the appellants are the husband and son of deceased Rugmini. It may be true that the parents of deceased Rugmini have preferred another Claim Petition which is admittedly pending on the file of the First Addl. District Court, Palakkad. But since the claim petition filed by the appellants was pending on the file of Tribunal at Palakkad, a joint trial might not have been possible unless so ordered. But still, in our view, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the Claim Petition filed by the appellants. An opportunity could have been given to the appellants to take necessary steps. The observation made by the learned Judge that there would be undue enrichment if the two petitions were allowed, may not be correct. Further, the observation made by the learned Judge insinuating that the appellants and their counsel were “clever” in not filing an MACA.21/2007. 2 application for joint trial is totally uncharitable and unwarranted. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that OP (MV). No.644/97 filed by the parents of the deceased is still pending trial on the file of the Addl.District Court & Addl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. 4. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances, we are satisfied that the award under challenge is liable to be set aside. We do so. The case is remitted back to the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. 5. OP (MV).No.644/97, which is now pending on the file of the Addl.District Court, Palakkad shall be transferred to the Tribunal at Palakkad to be tried along with OP (MV)No.562/97. 6. Appellants shall appear before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad on March 10, 2010. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.