IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH JUNE 2008 / 20TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 349 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.693/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MANGALORE NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENT: PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- ANOOP (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HIS FATHER RADHAKRISHNAN, PAZHAVOOR PADINJAKKARA VEEDU, PEECHANIKKADU, PULIYANAM P.O. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL). BY ADV. SRI.JOSE THETTAYIL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.349 OF 2004 ===================== Dated this the 10th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)No.693/1996. The contention is that there was a collision between the KSRTC bus and a lorry and the claimant sustained injuries. The Tribunal found that the driver of the lorry was negligent and ordered compensation accordingly. 2. A perusal of the award would show that some mistake is committed in writing the scene mahazar and it is stated that the non- examination of the Constable is not proper. Whatever it may be, even if the scene mahazar is read in the way in which it is to be read, the accident would not have been on the wrong side of the lorry, if it is true. So the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to find out the negligence of the lorry driver is on flimsy grounds. It has to be set aside and the matter requires reconsideration. Since the claimant has not preferred any right over the K.S.R.T.C., it is for the claimant to decide and if the law so permits to implead the K.S.R.T.C. as well in the party array. So, the claimant is CRPs 1918 & 1919/2003 -:2:- permitted to file an application for impleadment and after disposing of the same, the court may proceed to dispose of the matter after permitting all concerned to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and decide the matter in accordance with law. I make it clear that I have not interfered with the question of compensation awarded. The question of negligence and the liability alone need be decided by the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.7.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-