IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 25TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 697 of 2005() -------------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17/11/2004 IN IA.4669/2004 IN OPMV.782/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION, NAGERCOIL. BY ADV. MR.SUBHASH CYRIAC RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANTS ----------------------------------------- 1. GEETHA, W/O. E.C. RAJAKUMAR, ASHASADANAM, VALIAVILA, ATHIYANOOR DESOM, TRIVANDRUM. 2. RATHESH R.G., MINOR, S/O.E.C. RAJAKUMAR, DO. DO. DO. DO. 3. MAHESH KUMAR, MINOR, DO. DO. DO. (MINOR APPLICANTS 2 & 3 REPRESENTED BY MOTHER- R1). BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 697 of 2005 ORDER ON I.A.1458/2005 IN MACA. NO.697/2005 DISMISSED. 16/09/2009. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 697 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the preliminary award passed u/s 140 of the M.V.Act in O.P.782/03. The claimants are the legal representatives of one Rajkumar who was working as a conductor with the appellant herein. On account of the accident between the bus and the lorry the said Rajkumar died and his legal representatives had shown their address as residents of Neyyattinkara, Thiruvananthapuram, moved an application before the Tribunal, Neyyattinkara for compensation. The Tribunal on satisfaction of the materials passed a preliminary award u/s 140 of the M.V.Act. 2. So far as the question of negligence is concerned it is not a matter for consideration u/s 140 of the M.V.Act and therefore junction of the driver to award compensation u/s 140 of the M.V.Act may not be of very serious consequences. Similarly, the Court was satisfied with the M.A.C.A. 697 OF 2005 -:2:- jurisdiction where the parties are said to be residing and has passed the award. The question of negligence does not call for consideration at all u/s 140 of the M.V.Act and that also need not be looked into. Now I am informed that even a final award has been passed in the matter. So without any prejudice to the contentions which he may like to raise in the regular appeal against the final award of the Tribunal, this appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-