IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1850 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.852/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- JAYAKUMAR, S/O.PADMANABHAN, KALLUVETTAMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, THODUPUZHA KARA, THODUPUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. P.M. THOMAS, PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIOAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,P.B.NO.6, M.M. JUNCTION, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1850 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha, in OP(MV) 852/03. According to the claimant, while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike, due to the rash and negligent driving by its rider, he fell down and sustained injuries. He has claimed compensation. But the Tribunal on consideration of the entire materials, dismissed the case. 2. At the outset, I may like to point out that this is not a case which is properly filed. Even according to the claimant, the rider of the bike was one Manoj. It is also his case that the bike belonged to the said Manoj. This case is instituted even without the junction of Manoj. The 1st respondent, P.M.Thomas, is shown as the owner of the vehicle. This is a claim filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. When there is a dispute regarding the negligence aspect in a claim under section 166, it is now well settled that the driver is a necessary party. Therefore, the case filed without the junction of the driver is not proper. The claimant cannot be permitted MACA No.1850/06 2 to blow hot and cold at the same time by contending that Manoj is the owner and in the next breath submitting that Thomas is impleaded as the owner of the bike. The Tribunal has rightly discussed the suspicious circumstances in the case and it is very correct when it observes that Manoj is no where near the picture even immediately after the accident. These are all telling circumstances and I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and it is accordingly dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1850/06 3 MACA No.1850/06 4