IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN THURSDAY, THE 31ST JULY 2008 / 9TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1587 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.267/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA, WAYANAD. .................... APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------- 1. P.P. JOSEPH, S/O. POULOSE, AGED 52 YEARS, PAREKKATTILE (HOUSE), MYLAMBADI (POST), PURAKKADI AMSOM, DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD (DIST.). 2. REHEL, W/O. P.P.JOSEPH, AGED 49 YEARS, PAREKKATTILE (HOUSE), MYLAMBADI (POST), PURAKKADI AMSOM, DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD (DIST.). 3. SALI POULOSE, W/O. POULOSE, AGED 29 YEARS, PAREKKATTILE (HOUSE), MYLAMBADI (POST), PURAKKADI AMSOM, DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD (DIST.). 4. POULOSE, S/O. JOSEPH, AGED 27 YEARS, PAREKKATTILE (HOUSE), MYLAMBADI (POST), PURAKKADI AMSOM, DESOM, S. BATHERY TALUK, WAYANAD (DIST.). BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE ABRAHAM RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. N. SURENDRAN, S/O. CHOYIKUTTY, AGED 52 YEARS, EDAVAANISSERI (HOUSE), KANNADIKKAL (POST), VENGHERY,KOZHIKODE(KL-15/2833, T.N.799, K.S.R.T.C. BUS DRIVER). 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 ADV. SMT.VIJAYAKUMARI FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1587 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated 31st July, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . Appellants/claimants filed an application for compensation contending that the son of the first claimant died in a motor accident on 30.3.1998 due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the bus owned by the second respondent in an accident. Ext.A1 is the copy of the F.I.R. Ext.A2 is the scene mahazar and Ext.A3 is the family membership certificate. The death due to fatal injuries in the accident is not disputed. Therefore, postmortem certificate is not necessary in this case. In the written statement, contention of the respondents was that the amount claimed was high and the accident occurred not due to the negligence of the first respondent driver of the second respondent Corporation. The case was posted in 2005. Since none of the claimants were present, it was dismissed. Again it was restored on 11.8.2006. Thereafter also no further evidence was adduced. Claimants were also absent. Therefore, it was again dismissed. Of course, F.I.R, Scene Mahazar etc. can be looked into by the Tribunal regarding the question of negligence. But, it is for the claimants to prove the negligence and sustainability of their claim. It is submitted that due to the death of the son, parents became ill MACA.1587/2007 2 and there was nobody to help them. Hence, on the facts and circumstances of this case, we give one more opportunity to the claimants to substantiate their case. Therefore, the matter is remanded. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 20th October, 2008. Claimants should be present and shall not ask for any adjournment. The Tribunal should dispose of the matter as early as possible, in any event, before the end of this year. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE V.K.MOHANAN JUDGE tks