IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 20TH JANUARY 2009 / 30TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1744 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1436/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ AJAYAKUMAR, S/O. KUMARAN, CHAROTHU, WARD NO. 6, PANAVALLY PANCHAYATH, CHERTHALA. BY ADVS. SRI.G.GOPAKUMAR (CHERTHALA) SRI.SUNI M.D. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. ANIL KUMAR, S/O. KRISHNAN, PULIMPARAMBIL, PATTANAKKAD.P.O, CHERTHALA. 2. SIVADASAN, SAJITH BHAVAN, PATTANAKKAD, CHERTHALA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., CHERTHALA, REP. BY ITS MANAGER. ADV. SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1744 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV) No.1436/2002. The petitioner, a police man met with an accident while he was travelling as a pillion rider on a motorcycle. When the vehicle reached the place of the accident it is alleged that an autorickshaw came from the opposite direction and hit on the motorcycle resulting in sustainment of injuries to the claimant. The 3rd respondent disputed this question of negligence. The tribunal on a consideration of the materials dismissed the case for want of evidence. 2. The point that arises for determination is that, whether an opportunity is to be given to the claimant? The tribunal was not satisfied with the documents produced to prove the negligence. The tribunal could have directed the party to produce the scene mahazar or charge sheet and then disposed of the matter so that it could have satisfied its conscience. It is equally true there is a duty cast upon the petitioner to prove the factum of negligence by producing M.A.C.A. 1744/2008 -2- cogent evidence. Neither he mounted the box nor did he produce scene mahazar or charge sheet. So I do not find fault with the tribunal for dismissing the case. But interest of justice requires opportunity to be given to the claimant to prove the case. Therefore award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to the tribunal to permit the claimant to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his contentions and the Insurance Company is also permitted to produce evidence. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 26.2.2009. The matter be disposed of within a time limit of three months from the date of the first appearance of the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm