IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2008 / 30TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 150 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.755/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN THE OP(MV): -------------------------- BAIJU V.K., S/O. KOCHURAMAN (LATE), AGED 24 YEARS, RESIDING AT VADUTHALAPARAMBU NANDYADUKUNNAM, PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI.K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN THE OP(MV): ---------------------------- 1. T.K. ABDUL LATHEEF, AGE NOT KNOWN, RESIDING AT CHIRAKKAL HOUSE, NADAKKAVU, KOZHIKODE. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, CHEROOTY ROAD, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R.2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.150 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 22nd day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Prl.Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(MV)No.755 of 1998. The claimant was travelling in a bus and the said bus collided with a lorry resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal found that the claimant has not impleaded the owner, driver and insurer of the bus and that he has not produced the charge sheet and therefore held that both the vehicles are at fault. It is a totally erroneous approach. If the claimant sticks on to the negligence of one person a decision has to be taken on that question and therefore it was not correct to apportion the negligence at that level. But prudence demands in case of composite negligence when there is a contention that the other driver is negligent he is also made a party so that the Tribunal need not have to arrive at a decision of negligence without the junction of an aggrieved party. Therefore, I direct the claimant in this case to implead the driver, owner and insurer of the bus also . Therefore the finding on negligence is set aside. MACA 150/2008 -:2:- 3. The next question is regarding quantum. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit before me that a large number of documents had been produced before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has not considered the same. At the same time, the appendix only refers to 4 documents. But one thing is a fact that the Tribunal has come to know about the disability certificate for the reason that it has extracted the percentage of disability of 18% in the award. The counsel for the insurance company would submit that it will be only 5% in the court below. The Tribunal defers the question and ultimately accepts it at 5%. Accepting or non-accepting a disability certificate is a matter which requires judicial consideration. When the court or Tribunal discards a document, reasons have to be given for the same. It is also absent in this case. I do not want to make further observations. But, I feel the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The appellant herein is permitted to implead if he chooses to do so and also produce additional documents as well as oral evidence in support of his contentions. Needless to say that the insurance company is also permitted to adduce evidence and produce both documentary and oral evidence in support of its contentions. Thereafter the Tribunal shall consider the matter afresh and dispose it of in MACA 150/2008 -:3:- accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.12.2008. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-