IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1491 of 2004(C) -------------------------------- OPMV.750/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER: ----------------------------------- AKBAR, UTHAMANGALAM, CHARAMANGALAM, S.N. PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. BY ADV. SRI.J.OM PRAKASH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------- 1. HARILAL, S/O. KARUNAN, MADATHINCHIRA, CHERTHALA SOUTH PANCHAYATH, WARD NO.XII, CHERTHALA SOUTH P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. S.PARTHAN, UTHAMANGALAM, CHARAMANGALAM, S.N. PURAM P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, CHERTHALA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.T.GOPALAKRISHNAN FOR R3 SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER FOR R3 8MT.SREELEKHA.S.KUMAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1491 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)750/99. The claimant, it is submitted that, was a pillion rider to the motorbike driven by the first respondent which met with an accident when it hit on the back of a cycle resulting in injuries to the cyclist as well as to the pillion rider. The learned Tribunal somehow or other came to a conclusion that it was the claimant who had driven the motorbike which has resulted in the accident. Exts.A1 to A6 were produced before the Tribunal and PW1 had been examined. The charge sheet produced before Tribunal would reveal that the present claimant is also shown as an injured and he was cited as CW2 in the criminal case. None of the documents would show that the claimant was riding the vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is without basis. M.A.C.A. 1491 OF 2004 -:2:- 2. I have gone through the cross examination conducted on behalf of the insurance company and not even a question is put to the claimant whether he has driven the vehicle at the time of the accident. So the finding of the Tribunal appears to be merely on the basis of the some conjectures and surmises which cannot be entertained by a Court of law. Therefore the said award is liable to be set aside. The Tribunal has not considered any other questions, such as the quantum, the question being a pillion rider in a motorcycle whether the insurance company will be liable to pay the amount if it is only an Act only policy etc. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. The order under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for considering the question regarding the quantum of compensation which the claimant is entitled to and secondly whether the insurance company shall be liable to pay any compensation if it is only an Act only policy as admittedly the claimant was only a pillion rider. For the above two purposes the insurance M.A.C.A. 1491 OF 2004 -:3:- company as well as the claimant and the other parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed appear before the Tribunal on 31.10.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-