IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH OCTOBER 2008 / 2ND KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1538 of 2007() --------------------------------- OPMV.403/2000 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ------------------------------------ CHANDRAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNA PATHIYAR, AGED 31 YEARS, PEEDIKAKKAL HOUSE, KINAVALLOOR, PARALI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.P.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------------- 1. MR.K.M.ANWAR SAHIB, S/O.MOIDEENKUTTY, AGE NOT KNOWN, KULATHODI PARAMBU VEEDU, EDATHARA, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. (R.C OWNER OF VEHICLE NO.KL.10A-4366). 2. ADAMKUTTY, S/O.MOHAMMED, AGED 30 YEARS, ATHANIPARAMB VEEDU, KARIYAMKODE, PARALI POST, PALAKKAD. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE). 3. SUPPL. M.MOIDEENKUTTY, S/O.VAPPUTTY, MUDAPPATT VEEDU, MESHATHOOR P.O., THRITHALA, PATTAMBI. 4. SUPPL. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICER, PRANAVAM, PATTAMBI P.O., MELEPATTAMBI. ADV. SRI.P.K.MOHANAN(PALAKKAD) FOR R3 SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R4 SRI.BINOY VASUDEVAN FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1538 OF 2007 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of October 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)No.403 of 2000. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a passenger in an auto rickshaw driven by the 2nd respondent and when it reached the place of accident, it had overturned resulting in injuries to him. The first respondent was impleaded as the owner. The first respondent on appearance contended that he had never been the owner of the auto rickshaw and submitted that the supplemental 3rd respondent is the owner of the vehicle. Accordingly the supplemental 3rd respondent was impleaded and R4 was also impleaded as the insurance company. The first respondent produced a copy of the policy which was not an authenticated copy. But unfortunately it would show that the policy stood in the name of the supplemental 3rd respondent. None of the parties mounted the box to give evidence. The charge sheet was also not produced. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the first information statement a reference is made by the claimant to the effect that MACA 1538/2007 -:2:- the first respondent was the driver. It is true that the way of conducting the case is not very happy but if really an accident had taken place and being a beneficial social legislation it is not desirable to throw out claims on a technical ground and therefore I am inclined to grant opportunity to all to conduct the case properly. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of consideration of the following:(1) Whether the accident had taken place and if so, who was the driver and whether it was on account of his negligence.(2)Who was the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident and whether there was a valid insurance coverage.(3) Whether there was breach of policy conditions which would exonerate the insurance company or enable the company to get an order of reimbursement. (4)If additional parties are necessary in the light of the contentions raised by the parties already on record, they may also be impleaded and all the parties be permitted to produce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are direction to appear MACA 1538/2007 -:3:- before the Tribunal on 11.12.2008. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-