IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2010 / 29TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1508 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.459/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOCHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT: CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. GEORGE, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PARAYIL HOUSE, KODIKULAM P.O., THODUPUZHA. 2. SAJEEV MATHEW JOSEPH, PROPER LOTOR, SAROJ GAS AGENCIES, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. SATHEESHKUMAR, S/O.NARAYANAN, KIDANGIL (H), ANGAMOOZHI KARA, KUMARAKOM PEROOR, VADAKKEKARA VILLAGE, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: P T O VK M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1508 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV).No.459 of 2005. The claimant is the owner of a car which was hit by a lorry. The Tribunal on consideration of the materials, awarded a sum of Rs.17,100/- with 8% interest as vehicular damages. It is against that decision Insurance Company has come up in appeal challenging the negligence. 2.The main contention that has been argued before the Tribunal is that as per the scene mahazar the place of accident is 75 c.m south from the northern tarred end, it is also noted that the contention is to the effect that lorry was proceeding from west to east and the Maruti car was proceeding from east to west. If this is the real situation, then certainly the car was on the wrong side. To the utter dismay of all, the said document is not produced before the Tribunal. As usual, neither the claimant nor the respondent mounted the box to give any evidence. Therefore, the question of negligence has to be considered in the M.A.C.A.No.1508 OF 2009 2 right perspective by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. So I set aside the award and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The practice of not allowing oral evidence in matters where a serious dispute is there has come to the notice of this Court in so many cases and, therefore, as far as possible it should be averted and parties should be directed to let in evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 27.9.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mns