IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 16TH JUNE 2008 / 26TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 537 of 2005(D) ----------------------------------- O.P(MV).NO.59/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR. .................... APPELLANT/ THIRD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, 1ST FLOOR, P.B.NO. 1715, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH. RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT: ----------------------------------------- 1. BUSHI, S/O. PIOUS, KANAPPILLY HOUSE, NAYARAMBALAM-683 509. 2. O.S. UNNI, S/O. SUPRAN, OLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEDUNGAD, NAYARAMBALAM P.O., PIN-683 509. 3. SHIJU P.G., S/O. P.K. GEORGE, PUNNACHALIL HOUSE, EAST OF ANIYAL BAZAR, EDAVANAKKAD, PIN-682 502. BY ADV. SMT.T.B.MINI - R1 TO R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/06/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 537 OF 2005 --------------------- Dated this the 16th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in OP(MV) 59/01. The claimant alleges that he was a pillion rider of the vehicle which met with the accident and therefore he had claimed compensation for the same. On the other hand the Insurance Company would contend that the claimant himself was the driver and that the accident took place on account of his negligence and therefore he is not entitled to any compensation. 2. Unfortunately, the Tribunal did not frame any issue with respect to the point as to who had driven the bike at the time of the accident and whether the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the appellant, who had driven the vehicle at that point of time. The Tribunal as well as the Insurance Company proceeded on the basis of the facts and materials made available before it at the stage of trial. There was one document to prove that the present claimant was examined as outpatient on 20.8.00 and on 26.8.00 he was admitted as an inpatient. It is submitted that the cause of MACA No.537/05 2 admission was on account of the fall from the motor bike. These are all matters which require pin pointed evidence. 3. The point to be considered by the Tribunal was not whether an accident had taken place or not. But whether the accident had taken place as spoken to by the claimant or as contended by the Insurance Company. The matter has not been proceeded in such a direction. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. 4. Since I am setting aside the main question, it is desirable that I set aside the entire award and direct the Tribunal to consider the matter afresh. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. All parties are permitted to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to frame appropriate issues and proceed in accordance with the law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.07.2008 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.537/05 3 MACA No.537/05 4 MACA No.537/05 5