IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2008 / 22ND ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 285 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.2070/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- JACOB P.KULIRANGAL, AGED 24 YEARS, S/O.K.P.PAULOSE, KULIRANGAL HOUSE, PALAKUZHA P.O., PALAKUZHA KARA, PALAKUZHA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.H.SIVARAMAN SRI.MATHEW CHERIAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BYJU M.JOSEPH, DRIVER, K.S.R.T.C. S/O.JOSEPH, MADAVANA HOUSE, PULINCHODU, KADAKKAPPILLY KARA, CHERTHALA, VADAKKUMURI VILLAGE. 2. MANAGING DIRECTOR, K.S.R.T.C., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., T.P.CLAIMS CELL, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. ADV. SRI.SAJEEVKUMAR K.GOPAL, SC, KSRTC FOR R2 ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 ADV. SRI.SHYSON P.MANGUZHA FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 285 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed challenging the award of the MACT declining to grant compensation to the appellant for the reason that accident was caused on account of negligence of the appellant. We have heard counsel appearing for the appellant and standing counsel appearing for the insurance company. 2. During hearing, appellant's counsel brought to our notice the order in CC No. 2116 of 2003 issued by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Muvattupuzha acquitting the appellant of the charges framed under Section 279 of the IPC. Based on the order so produced along with I.A.No.2565 of 2008, appellants counsel contended that finding of the MACT based on police records that the accident was caused on account of negligence of the appellant is not tenable. On going through the award we find that though MACT came to the conclusion that appellant caused the accident on account of his negligence, substantial reliance is placed on the police case against the appellant by the MACT. Moreover MACT assumed negligence on the 2 part of the appellant because of scene of occurrence is almost in the middle of the road. We do not think scene of occurence in this case which is the middle of the road, can lead to the conclusion that appellant caused the accident, particularly because two vehicles were crossing the road at the time of the accident and the road itself has only a width of 5.5 metres. Since appellant has placed reliance on the order of the Magistrate Court which was not before the MACT, we feel the matter should be reconsidered by the MACT based on the order of the Magistrate Court acquitting the appellant. MACT should also consider the appellant's alternative claim that his claim should be considered as one under Section 163A of the M.V. Act. Appeal is accordingly disposed of setting aside the award of the MACT with direction to it to rehear the parties and dispose of the matter afresh. Parties are given freedom to produce documents and raise all their contentions before the MACT. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3