IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2011 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 965 of 2009() ---------------------------- OPMV.299/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/CLAIMANT. ----------------------------------------------- O.T.MOHANDAS, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, SREYAS, KALPETTA POST, KALPETTA AMSOM OF VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADVS. SRI.SHYAM PADMAN SRI.A.RANJITH NARAYANAN SRI.S.K.SAJU RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS --------------------------------------------------------- 1. SRI.K.N.BALAN, S/O.M.R.GOPALAN, 8/498, KEERANVELI HOUSE, POST MUTTILY AMSOM AND DESOM, VYTHIRI TALUK, WAYANAD DISTRICT. (OWNER OF JEEP NO.KL12-9689). 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, M.G.T.BUILDINGS, KALPETTA NORTH POST, WAYANAD DISTRICT (INSURER OF JEEP NO.KL12-9689 POLICE NO.31760660486238). R2 BY ADVS. SRI.VIJU THOMAS SMT.M.MEENA JOHN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI,JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.965 of 2009 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant who was involved in a road traffic accident instituted a petition under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the offending vehicle. The claim was resisted primarily by the Insurance Company. 2. The Tribunal passed the impugned award holding that the claim petition would not be maintainable in as much as the annual income of the claimant exceeded Rs.40,000/-. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the award is manifestly illegal, unjust and arbitrary. It is pointed out by him that the Tribunal, even after noticing that the forearm of the appellant had been amputated, dismissed the claim petition as not maintainable solely on the ground that the appellant had been earning more than Rs.40,000/- per annum. 4. The short question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition on the above ground. 5. The issue is no more res integra in view of catena of M.A.C.A.No.965 of 2009 2 decisions on the point. It is settled law that the claimant ought to be given sufficient opportunity to amend his pleadings, if requested for. The provisions contained in Sections 163 A and 166 of the Act being welfare measures aimed at alleviating the hardship of the victims of accident, it has to be borne in mind always that technicalities and niceties of procedure do not hamper the chances of victims from getting adequate compensation. The Tribunal must therefore give sufficient opportunity to the claimants to amend the pleadings if necessary, so that the claim is not defeated and the claimant is enabled to get compensation. 6. Keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant to give an opportunity to the appellant to amend the pleadings appropriately, we are satisfied that this is a fit case in which such an opportunity should be afforded. In that view of the matter the impugned award is set aside. 7. The appeal is disposed of, making it clear that it will be open to the appellant to amend the pleadings in the claim petition appropriately. If such an application for amendment is M.A.C.A.No.965 of 2009 3 filed, the Tribunal shall entertain the same and adjudicate the matter afresh, in accordance with law. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on May 25, 2011. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before October 31, 2011. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE rkc