IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2011 / 16TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 2227 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.175/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): (PETITIONER IN OPMV 175/04) ------------------------------------------ C.SADANANDAN, S/O.KUNHAMAN, AGED 53 YEARS, AMRITA SADAN, CHAKKARAKAL P.O., MOWACHERY, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA SRI.GOPAKUMAR G. (ALUVA) RESPONDENT(S): R2 IN OPMV 175/2004 ---------------------------------- 1. C.MUKUNDAN, S/O.C.KRISHNAN, PARVATHI NIVAS, P.O.ALACHERY, PIN-670650. 2. THE NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUNICIPAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, M.G.ROAD, TELLICHERRY, PIN-670101. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J ---------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 2227 OF 2010 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2011 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV) No.175 of 2004. It is the case of the claimant that, while he was crossing the road a car bearing registration No.KL-13 C 6837 knocked him down and thereafter another car bearing registration No.KL 13 J 2617 driven by the 1st respondent in claim petition hit on his ribs and chest resulting in injuries to him. Unfortunately, the claimant has only impleaded the driver cum owner of one car KL-13 J 2617. The learned tribunal found that as per the First Information Statement given the claimant himself attributed negligence on both the cars and therefore, found that the case is bad for non joinder of necessary parties. I feel in these type of case if the other side is not impleaded and if there is any negligence on the part of the impleaded driver at least that part of the compensation could be awarded. But unfortunately in this case, the Tribunal did not proceed further to decide the nature of injury and compensation. Therefore, it requires re- consideration at M.A.C.A.NO.2227 OF 2010 2 the hands of the trial Court. I also feel that an opportunity can be given to the claimant to implead the other owner and driver also. In the result, the MACA is allowed, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with permission to the claimant to implead the other owner, driver and Insurance Company involved in the accident and also permit all parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence with respect to their contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The appellant shall appear before the Tribunal on 24-02-2011 and thereafter take out notice to the respondents in the claim petition. Disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE pm