IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 815 of 2007() -------------------------------- OPMV.1451/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- ELSAY, W/O.SAJU, AGED 30 YEARS, ARACKAL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT CHUNDIYIL HOUSE, C/O.C.K.KURUVILA, MEKKADAMPU KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.PEEYUS A.KOTTAM RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SAJU, S/O.ITTOOP MATHEW, ARACKAL HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM KARA, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT CHUNDIYIL HOUSE, C/O.C.K.KURIVILA, MEKKADAMPU KARA, VALAKOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA TALUK. 2. METHEW VARGHESE, MAMOOTTATHU HOUSE, RAYAMANGALAM P.O., KURUPPANPADY, RAYAMANGALAM VILLAGE. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A.M.ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR-683 542. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.815 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 19th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1451 of 2003. The claimant, the wife of the rider of a motor cycle sustained injuries in a road accident. The factum of accident is not disputed. What is contended is that there is no negligence. The learned Tribunal found that in Ext.A1 the claimant has only stated that her husband was riding the motor cycle in a high speed. When a person drives the motor cycle in an uncontrollable speed it will amount to negligence. But, it is a settled position that when there is a free road the very factum of high speed may not be attributed as negligence. But these are all matters which requires consideration. The investigating agency has conducted the investigation and laid a charge sheet against the driver. It is true that the claimant has not been examined. But what is the contra evidence available is the question to be posed. The Tribunals are not expected to dismiss the claim petitions on the basis of conjectures and surmises on the plea of collusion made by a party. There MACA 815/2007 -:2:- must be some evidence tendered in the case. Therefore 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. All parties are permitted to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. If the claimant does not choose to give any evidence, the Tribunal need not proceed further and dispose of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.12.2008. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-