IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH AUGUST 2010 / 26TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 567 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.1407/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PERUMBAVOOR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------------------- ASHOKAN, S/O.BHASKARAN, KUTTIPOLAYIL HOUSE, ARATTUVAZHY WARD, ALAPPUZHA. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST RESPONDENTS1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL PETITION AND HENCE THEY ARE NOT MADE PARTIES IN THIS APPEAL) BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL J.CHAKKALACKAL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.736/2010 IN MACA. NO.567/2010 CLOSED 17/08/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY PA. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.567 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 17th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)No.1407/2004. The claimant while riding a two wheeler collided with a car resulting in serious injuries to him. He had sustained compound fracture of both the bones of the left leg besides laceration and abrasion all over the body. 2. The Tribunal relying on the charge sheet found the driver of the car negligent and directed Rs.70,000/= to be given as compensation in the case. The insurance company who has sought permission under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has come up in appeal challenging the negligence. It is contended by the insurance company that the car was proceeding from north to south and the scooter was proceeding from south to north. The place of accident is 2.5 metres west of the eastern tar end. The road was having a width of 9 metres. If this is the factual situation, then one has to hold that the scooter was on the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.567 OF 2010 wrong side. But there are contradictory statements in the petition regarding the direction. Unfortunately nobody has mounted the box to give any evidence. So it had become necessary to find out the question of negligence. Therefore an opportunity is given to both sides to adduce evidence and also to produce the scene mahazer, if necessary let the person who had prepared the scene mahazer also be examined. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the appellant as well as the claimant to adduce both 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 24.9.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.567 OF 2010 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.567 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.OF 2010 ............................................. 2nd day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T