IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 20TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 29TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 83 of 2004() --------------------- OPMV.421/1993 OF ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ................ APPELLANT / 3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.B.NO.60, 1ST FLOOR, AISWARYA, N.H.47, KAYAMKULAM-690 502. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANT AND R-1 AND 2 : -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAPHEL, S/O. JOSEPH, MUNDAKARA PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, MANJUMMEL POST, ELOOR. 2. K.K. BASHEER, VARANIYIL HOUSE, PEDA-NORTH, KARUNAGAPALLY. 3. VINODH KUMAR, S/O. KUNJAN, PUSHPALAYAM HOUSE, KOONAMTHAI, THRIKKAKARA, NORTH VILLAGE. R3 BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU SRI.M.V.BIPIN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 20/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- MACA.No. 83 of 2004 -2- ORDER ON IA.NO. 181/2004 IN MACA.No. 83/2004 DISMISSED 20/09/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 83 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 20th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)421/93. It is the case of the claimant that while he was riding a motor bike the offending car came from behind hit on the back of his motorbike which in turn hit on a pedestrian resulting in injuries to the pedestrian as well as to the claimant. The Tribunal has granted a compensation in favour of the claimant but in spite of paper publication he is not appearing before the Court. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit before me that the pedestrian moved an application for compensation as O.P.(MV)731/93 and the learned Tribunal had dismissed that M.A.C.A. 83 OF 2004 -:2:- petition stating that he has not succeeded in proving the involvement of the car in the accident. It was a case where the claimant therein alleged that while he was walking a car came and hit him whereas the police charge did show that there was a hit on the motorbike's back which had resulted in the hit on the pedestrian. So on account of the inconsistent version the Court dismissed the case. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company had brought to my notice the wound certificate as well as the A.M.V.I. Report. In the would certificate it is stated that the claimant got himself admitted in the hospital and his case was “RTA, his bike hit on a person who is crossing the road near Mathrubhoomi.” In the A.M.V.I. Report it is highlighted that the damages to the motorbike is on the front but I M.A.C.A. 83 OF 2004 -:3:- find there is some thing on the back which I cannot properly understand. So there is some confusion which requires consideration. The insurance company or the claimant can examine persons and satisfy the conscience of the Court regarding the involvement of the car in the accident. 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. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-