IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1222 of 2008() ----------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26/12/2007 IN OPMV 1628/04 IN OPMV.1441/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- AJITH BABU, S/O. BABU, KIZHAKKETHIL HOUSE, CHALUKKUNNU, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.NARAYANAN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. MATHEW M.MATHAI, ERAKKATHU HOUSE, VELLOOR P.O., PAMPADY, KOTTAYAM. 2. MOHAN DAS V.M., VAZHAKKAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KILIANTHARA P.O. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/06/2008 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.NO.1223 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1222 OF 2008 And M.A.C.A. NO. 1223 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) Nos.1441/04 and 1628/04. Since the matter requires further consideration by the Tribunal I am disposing of the matter without notice to the other side making it clear that fresh notice may be again send to the respondents who had remained exparte before the Court below for fresh consideration. 2. In these appeals, the contention is that while the father and son were travelling in a scooter, a motor cycle owned by the first respondent and driven by the 2nd respondent had collided resulting in sustainment of injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 had chosen to remain exparte before the Tribunal. The first information report, the first information statement and scene mahazar were produced. It M.A.C.A. 1222 & 1223 OF 2008 -:2:- is also to be stated that treatment records were also produced before the Tribunal. Some how or the other the Tribunal found that the documents produced are not sufficient and there is no evidence adduced to prove that the 2nd respondent was riding the offending vehicle or that R1 is the registered owner of that vehicle. It has to be remembered that respondents 1 and 2 had chosen to remain exparte before the Tribunal and documents such as FIR and scene mahazar were produced before the tribunal. If there was such an apprehension in the mind of the Tribunal the Tribunal could have directed the parties to adduce oral evidence or any further document if necessary to be produced. But the tribunal in stead of doing the same had dismissed the case. So, I feel the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the awards under challenge are set aside and both the cases are remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The appellants herein are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their contentions to satisfy the conscience of the M.A.C.A. 1222 & 1223 OF 2008 -:3:- Court regarding the accident and sustainment of injuries. Since I am disposing of the matter at the admission stage and as respondents 1 and 2 had remained exparte at the trial stage, then at the stage of trial I direct the Tribunal to issue fresh notice at the expense of the claimant and fix a date and thereafter dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appellants are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 31.7.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-