IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2010 / 8TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 3225 of 2009 --------------------------------- (O.P(MV).NO.34/2006 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA) .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT IN O.P. (MV): ---------------------------------------------------------- FATHER IGNATIOUS CHITTILAPPILLY, CHITTILAPPALLY HOUSE, P.O. KALLETTUMKARA, THRISSUR DIST., (NOW RESIDING AT ST. MARY'S CHURCH, SRINGAPURAM, KODUNGALLUR. BY ADV. SRI.V.M.KRISHNAKUMAR. RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN O.P. (MV): ---------------------------------------------------------- GIRIJA VALLABHAN, AGED 56 YEARS, S/O. P.P. KUMARAN, PANIKKASSERY HOUSE, P.O. PULLUR, KODUNGALLUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30/07/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. 3225 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = == = DATED THIS, THE 30TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal p;referred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P. (M.V.) 34/2006. The claimant, who is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 25,200/- with 7% interest. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent has come up in appeal. 2. A perusal of the award would reveal that it is recorded that there is no evidence for the respondent. Along with the appeal, the learned counsel has produced documents to show that he had filed an application to re-open the case on 3.4.2009 and the learned Tribunal had dismissed it on 4th April, 2009 and then it passed the award on 11.6.2009. I do not understand what prevented the Tribunal from giving an opportunity to the respondent in the claim petition to put forward his evidence. One would have understood it if the matter had been disposed of on the very same day; but it had been taken up for final hearing on 9.6.2009. So there is really injustice done to the party and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. MACA 3225/2009 2 3. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit both the parties to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in respect of their respective contentions and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the claimant has not chosen to appear before this Court in spite of notice served on the delay petition, the appellant is directed to take out notice to him for a proper adjudication of the matter. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.9.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, (JUDGE) KNC/-