IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH JULY 2008 / 8TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 486 of 2005(C) ---------------------- OPMV.591/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANTS/APPLICANT & ADDL.APPLICANTS P2 TO P6 ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. N.USHA KUMARI, MANI BHAVAN, KARAKKAMANDAPAM, MEMOM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. U.P.CHANDRALEKHA, RESIDING AT DO. DO. 3. U.P.CHANDRAKALA (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER, WHO IS THE 2ND APPELLANT RESIDING AT DO. DO. 4. U.P.CHANDRAKANTH (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY HER MOTHER WHO IS THE 2ND APPELLANT RESIDING AT DO. DO. 5. DEVAKI AMMA, RESIDING AT DO. DO. BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP SRI.V.VIJULAL RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS --------------------------------- 1. MAJOR M.P.S.NAIR (DIED) CHAVALRY BARRACK ENCLAVE, J.J.NAGAR P.O., SECONDARABAD, NOW RESIDING AT T.C.7/1522, KATTACHA ROAD, NEAR PALLIMUKKU, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. KAMAL S/O. MAJOR M.P.S.NAIR T.C.7/1522, KATTACHAL ROAD, NEAR PALLIMUKKU, THIRUMALA, THIRUMALA VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE II BRANCH 612 100 ADJT: AUTOMOTIVE MANUFACTURERS, MADAM MOHAN BUILDINGS, P.O.ROAD, SECONDARABAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 486 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 30th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram in O.P.(MV) 591/99. One Premachandran Pillai, a lineman in K.S.E.B., sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a scooter bearing Reg.No.KEV 4699. It was his case that a scooter ridden by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition bearing Reg.No.RPZ 142 came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on the scooter resulting injuries to him. During the pendency of the trial the claimant died and his legal representatives were recorded as supplemental petitioners 2 to 6. The Tribunal found that only the FIR is produced and there is nothing to connect the case and the negligence and therefore dismissed the case. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred. 2. The learned counsel would submit that after the death of the claimant there was difficulty for the additional M.A.C.A. 486 OF 2005 -:2:- petitioners and most probably that has resulted in not producing all the documents that are necessary for a proper disposal of the case. Merely on the basis of a first information report a case cannot be disposed of but the fact remains that Ext.A2 would reveal that the claimant sustained injuries in the road accident. Therefore it is only just and equitable that an opportunity is given to the additional claimants to put forward their case by producing proper documents and adducing evidence. There has been negligence on their part and therefore whether any curtailment of interest is to be done is a matter that can be finally decided by the Tribunal after the matter is completely heard. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the appellants to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and if necessary to implead the legal representatives of the owner of the other vehicle and thereafter the Tribunal shall proceed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Needless to M.A.C.A. 486 OF 2005 -:3:- say the insurance company also is permitted to produce evidence in support of its contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.9.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-