IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 134 of 2005(D) ----------------------- OPMV.1122/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- MEREEN JOSEPH, W/O JIMMY, AGED 29 YEARS RESIDING AT THEKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, NORTH MARADYKARA, MARADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI SMT.A.S.BEENU SRI.M.V.BIPIN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SHAMEER S/O. ALIYAR, CHIRAPPILLIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. JOSEPH K.P., KIZHAKKEMACHIKKATTIL HOUSE, PERINJATTACKAL P.O., PAYYAMON, KONNI. 3. JIMMY JOSE T., THEKKUMMOOTTIL HOUSE, NORTH MARADY P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.R.BINDU (SASTHAMANGALAM) FOR R1 SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.134 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP(MV)No.1122/2000. The claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike driven by her husband and when it reached the place of accident, it collided with another motor cycle resulting in injuries to her. The motor cycle driven by the claimant’s husband was having Reg.No.KL-7/l-2675 and the opposite vehicle was having Reg.No.KL-B/7116. Unfortunately, the claimant did not examine any person in this case. The claimant has produced the scene mahazer and the final report and mainly relying upon the final report, the Tribunal non-suited the claimant. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available for perusal a copy of Ext.A3. I do not want to commend upon Ext.A3, but I have to say that it is a very unsatisfactory final report that can be filed by an investigating agency. Two vehicles collided. One can hold : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.134 OF 2005 that how the accident had taken place. But, what is stated in Ext.A3 that both the drivers were not driving fast and both the drivers were not negligent as if it was an inevitable accident. How can it be an inevitable accident, is a matter that requires real probe. But, unfortunately, the investigating officer had submitted a report before the court which accepted it and dropped the case. It is true that no protest complaint is filed. But, these are all matters which in the regime of criminal court to find out criminal negligence to attract Sections 279,337 and 338 of C.P.C as the case may be. But in a motor accident claim, court is having quasi judicial authority which is of a civil nature and in such cases, rigour of proof is comparatively less when compared to criminal negligence. So, in a case like this, it has to be found that who was more negligent or who alone was negligent or both of them have equally contributed to the accident. In stead of finding it in such a fashion, just like criminal refer report, the court has also dismissed the case. The applicant also has to be equally blamed for the reason it was the responsibility of the applicant to tender evidence : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.134 OF 2005 before the Tribunal to satisfy the conscience of the Tribunal regarding the case of accident and negligence. But it has also to be stated that the claimant had sustained fracture as a result of the injury. 3. I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the claimant as well as to the respondents in this case and therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.01.2010. It is specifically made clear that the applicant has to take out notice to the owner of the other vehicle for the proper disposal of the matter. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.134 OF 2005