IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 1460 of 2010 ( B ) ----------------------- (OPMV.2757/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR) .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THRISSUR, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & IST RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BALAKRISHNAN.P.R, AGED 39, S/O.RAMAN, PUNCHADATH HOUSE, KOZHUKKULLY, MOORIKKANIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. K.P.LAWRENCE, AGED 45, S/O.PAILOTH, KOONTHALY HOUSE, NADATHARA, MINOR ROAD, THRISSUR DIST. R1 BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON R2 BY ADV.SRI.SHEJI P.ABRAHAM THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1472 OF 2010 , THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 1460 of 2010 & 1472 OF 2010 and Cross Objections 90 & 93 of 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 19th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred by the insurance company on the question of the finding on negligence by the Tribunal. The cross objections are preferred with respect to the adequacy of the compensation. After hearing the learned counsel appearing for all sides I think the entire matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeal and the cross objections are stated as follows. 2. The claimants in O.P.(MV) 2757/05 and 2758/05 were travelling in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/T 4904. Their motorcycle happened to collide with another motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-8/D 3705 resulting in sustainment of injuries to the rider as M.A.C.A. Nos. 1460/10 & 1472/10 -:2:- well as the pillion rider. Along with the owner of the other motorcycle and other insurance company on the party array the claim petitions had been filed. The trial court found negligence against the first respondent in the claim petition and directed the insurance company who is the appellant herein to pay compensation. 3. Learned counsel for the insurance company had made available before me the charge sheet filed by the appellants in this case. Unfortunately, the Tribunal just made a passing observation about the FIR and the charge sheet and came to a conclusion that the rider of the other bike namely the first respondent in the claim petition is responsible for the accident. I feel the Tribunal has not properly read the charge sheet and that has resulted in such a finding. 4. A perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that there was a charge sheet against the first respondent and another charge sheet was also being M.A.C.A. Nos. 1460/10 & 1472/10 -:3:- filed against the rider of the bike involved in this case namely one of the petitioners and therefore it was a case called A charge sheet and B charge sheet. Normally if it remains unexplained, when an accident took place almost on the middle of a road both can be considered as tortfeasors. I am not elaborating the matter for the reason that evidence is necessary in order to find out whether only one rider is negligent or both the riders are negligent. Therefore the finding on negligence is to be set aside and the matter has to go back. Since the matter has to go back and as there is a prayer for enhancement of the compensation in the form of cross objections, irrespective of the other criteria I feel a chance can be given for the reason that it has become imperative now to implead the rider and owner and insurance company of the other motorcycle also and so with them on party array, the whole compensation has to be redetermined. Therefore I also leave open the M.A.C.A. Nos. 1460/10 & 1472/10 -:4:- quantum to be decided after hearing all concerned. Therefore the appeals and cross objections are disposed of and the awards under challenge are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the question of negligence, after permitting the claimants to take necessary steps to get all the parties on the party array and then to adduce evidence by all sides, both documentary as well as oral, in support of their respective contentions regarding the negligence, quantum and liability and thereafter the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.10. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-