IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 21ST JANUARY 2008 / 1ST MAGHA 1929 MACA.No. 1254 of 2004() ----------------------- O.P.(M.V) No.2801/1998 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM. APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------- JANAKI, W/O. GOPALAN, MANATTUKUNNEL, PARAPPURAM BHAGOM, AMAYANNUR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MOHAMED HASHIM RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------ 1. K.N.RAJU, S/O. NARAYANAN THANKAPPAN, KALAYIL HOUSE,AMAYANOOR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE. 2. SABU JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, PAREPARAMBIL (PARAYIL), AMAYANOOR KARA, AYARKUNNAM VILLAGE. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., KOTTAYAM BRANCH. R3 BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.1254 of 2004 ------------------------------- Dated this the 21st January, 2008. J U D G M E N T Petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.2801/1998, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant. Appellant filed the Original Petition claiming compensation alleging that on 5.9.1997, she sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. The case of the appellant was that while she was walking along the side of the road, a motor cycle bearing Registration No.KL-5/D-1820 driven by the second respondent, hit against her body. It was averred that accident occurred due to the negligence of the rider of the motor cycle. She claimed compensation of Rs.59,000/=. The owner and driver did not contest the matter. Insurer alone contested the matter. It was contended that no accident as alleged in the accident took place. The allegation that the accident occurred due to the negligence of second respondent was denied. It was contended that he was not holding a valid driving licence. It was further contended that there is no violation of policy conditions and Insurer is not liable to indemnify the M.A.C.A.No. 1254/2004 2 insurer. Appellant produced O.P.tickets and medical bills. No oral evidence was adduced. The Tribunal took a view that the appellant failed to prove the accident alleged and dismissed the original petition. Claiming that award, this appeal is filed. 2. Appellant did not go to box and gave evidence. She produced the O.P. Ticket and medical bills. Counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has infact produced certified copies of the F.I.R., final report, wound certificate etc. and other relevant records. But the same did not reach the Tribunal at the time of hearing, and that is why the original petition was dismissed. It is also submitted that the petitioner was present in the court. No opportunity was given to adduce oral evidence also. 3. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that it is only just and proper that another opportunity be given to the appellant to prove her case. For that purpose, the case has to go back. M.A.C.A.No. 1254/2004 3 In the result, the appeal is allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.P.(M.V.) No.2801/1998 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded. The Tribunal is directed to take back the file and dispose of the same afresh, in accordance with law, after giving reasonable opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. Being an old case, the Tribunal shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible, within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Parties shall appear before the court below on 25.2.2008. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE nj.