IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 394 of 2009() --------------------------------- OPMV.815/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------------ RATHEESH. V.R, VALIYAVEEDU HOUSE, CHEMPU.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.A.K.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. JEEVAN. V.S, VALIYA VEEDU, CHEMPU.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. K.M. REJIMON, KAITHAVALAPPIL, CHEMPU.P.O, VAIKOM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM. R3 BY ADV. MR.VPK.PANICKER . THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 394 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV)815/05. It is the case of the claimant that he was a pillion rider in a vehicle ridden by the first respondent and the vehicle hit on a lady who was crossing the road which also resulted in injuries to him. The Court below was not prepared to accept the case stating that it is not proved that he is involved in the accident as his name is not seen in the documents. Along with the memorandum of appeal the claimant had produced 161 Cr.P.C. statement of CW2 and CW3. There are recitals therein to the effect that the vehicle was driven by one Jeevan and there was a pillion rider who also sustained injuries. In criminal cases 161 Cr.P.C. statement is used only for the purpose of contradiction or corroboration but situation may change when it is used as evidence in a civil case. The fact that this person was also admitted in the M.A.C.A. 394 OF 2009 -:2:- hospital on 2.4.05 is evidenced from the case summary and discharge card produced in this case. The claimant did not choose to get himself examined before the Tribunal and if he is examined there would have been better evidence. There are some materials which require consideration to find out the truth and therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity to establish his case. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the claimant to get himself examined as a party witness and then produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contentions. Needless to say other parties including the insurance company are also permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.2.2010. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-