IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 1ST DECEMBER 2010 / 10TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1720 of 2005 --------------------- OPMV.1413/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT: ---------- P.M.PAULOSE, S/O.MATHEW ULAHANNAN, AGED 60 YEARS, PARAPUZHA HOUSE, MEEMPARA P.O., PARIYARAM KARA, AICKARANAD SOUTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNAD TALUK (PETITIONER IN MACT) BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI RESPONDENTS: ----------- 1. ANISH CHANDRAN, S/O.CHANDRAN, HOUSE NO.4/48, MUNDAMATTOM BUILDING, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. MOHANAN, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, MECHERIL HOUSE, VALAMBOOR KARA, PATTIMATTOM P.O. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA(RESPONDENT IN MACT) ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 1720 of 2005-D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 1st day of of December, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant is the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He filed the petition seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act alleging that he sustained serious injuries like supra condylar fracture and inter comminuted fracture of femur (L), apart from cervical spine injury in a road traffic accident that occurred on February 2, 2000 at Kinginimattom. According to the appellant he was riding on his scooter when another two wheeler owned by respondent No.1 and driven by respondent No.2 dashed against it. Appellant contended that the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.2. He claimed a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards compensation from the respondents. 2. The Tribunal after considering the materials available on record which consisted of the oral testimony of Pws.1 to 5 and Exts.A1 to A16 produced by the appellant, came to the conclusion that there is no satisfactory evidence to show that the accident had occurred because of the rash MACA.1720/05. : 2 : and negligent driving by respondent No.2. Resultantly the Claim Petition was dismissed. Hence this appeal. 3. It is on record that the appellant was proceeding from west to east on his scooter while the alleged offending vehicle was coming from east to west. The tarred road at the point of accident had a width of 4 meters. The two Police personnel gave evidence in support of the version given by the appellant as regards the occurrence. It also came on record that the Police had charge sheeted respondent No.2 for the offences under Section 279 and 338 IPC after due investigation. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence was however not impressed with the evidence adduced by the appellant. 4. We have carefully perused the materials available on record. In our view, the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the appellant had not established his case. It may at once be noticed that there was no contra evidence from the side of the respondents. Significantly, respondents 1 and 2 did not choose to appear before the Tribunal and therefore they were set ex parte. More importantly, the Police officials who had prepared the scene mahazar and conducted the investigation categorically stated about the process of investigation and also the fact that respondent MACA.1720/05. : 3 : No.2 was charge sheeted on the basis of the investigation. But still the Tribunal did not seem to have been impressed with the uncontroverted evidence adduced by the appellant. 5. Having perused the reasoning of the learned Judge in the award, we are not at all satisfied with the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the issue. As has been mentioned already, the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the appellant did clinchingly show that the accident occurred because of the rash and negligent driving of the two wheeler by respondent No.2. In that view of the matter, the finding entered by the Tribunal on issue No.1 in the award is liable to be set aside. We do so. 6. As has been mentioned already, the appellant had claimed a total sum of Rs.12 lakhs towards compensation. The specific case of the appellant is that he had undergone treatment for more than 1½ years in connection with the injuries sustained by him. He had produced the medical records before the Tribunal but the Tribunal did not consider any of those documents. It is also seen from the records that the Medical Board had certified that appellant suffered 34% permanent disability. 7. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the above aspect any further at this stage. In our view, the MACA.1720/05. : 4 : Tribunal has to consider the case of the appellant as regards the quantum of compensation that he might be entitled to get. 8. In that view of the matter, the case is remanded to the Tribunal which shall quantify the amount of compensation, if any, payable by the respondents. The Tribunal shall afford opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence, if they so choose. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 9. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on December 20, 2010. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.