IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 6TH OCTOBER 2008 / 14TH ASWINA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 2030 of 2005(B) ------------------------------------- OP(MV) NO.250/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA ........................................ APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ---------------------------------------- C.C.SUNIL,S/O.CHOTHY,RESIDING AT CHERUVILLITHRA HOUSE, EDAVANAKADU P.O.,EDAVANAKADU VILLAGE, VACHAKKAL. BY ADV. SMT.ANEY PAUL SRI.PHILIP J.VETTICKATTU RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. N.V.JOY,S/O.GHEEVARGHESE,NJATTUMKALAYIL HOUSE,KADAYIRUPPU, KOLENCHERY. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALWAYE. ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF - R1 SRI.BENNY VARGHESE - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERD THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2030 OF 2005 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P(M.V) No. 250/2001. The claimant, a pillion rider in a bike driven by first respondent sustained injuries in a road accident. It is averred that while he was travelling as a pillion rider and when the vehicle reached the place of the accident, a person suddenly crossed the road which made the rider apply sudden brake and he was thrown out to the drain and sustained injuries. It is averred that the accident took place on the negligence of the first respondent. The Tribunal did not believe the evidence of PWs. 1 and 2 and arrived at a decision that negligence is not proved. The accident took place on 20.12.2000 and the F.I. Statement filed on 21.12.2000. There is clear recital in Ext. A1 that there was fast driving by the first respondent. Just because the claimant is an employee under the first respondent he should not be denied justice. The law has been set in motion and there has M.A.C.A.No. 2030/2005 -2- been proper allegation in the F.I. statement. The police after due investigation has filed a charge sheet and the first respondent appears to have pleaded guilty on the basis of Ext. A7 judgment. The Tribunal disbelieved PW2 for the reason that PW1 gave evidence that he was taken in a car where as PW2 would say that he was taken in an Ambulance. These are all minor contradictions. It is the totality of the materials that the Tribunal has to consider. The Tribunal did not consider the other documents prepared by the police including the charge sheet and the judgment of the Criminal Court before arriving at a decision. Therefore I feel, an opportunity can be given and the Tribunal can reconsider the matter and dispose of the case. Insurance Company wants to raise an additional contention regarding its liability on account of fact that the claimant as a pillion rider, it is permitted to do so and the Tribunal can consider the terms and conditions of the policy to find out whether there is a liability cast on the Insurance Company. 2. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after permitting both sides to adduce oral as well as documentary M.A.C.A.No. 2030/2005 -3- evidence in support of their respective contentions and then fix the quantum as well as the liability and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 24.11.2008. The Tribunal shall try to dispose of this matter within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm