IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC FRIDAY, THE 8TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 19TH MAGHA 1929 WP(C).No. 37913 of 2007(L) -------------------------- OPMV.258/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER: ------------ 1. THANKAPPAN ,S/O. NANU, AGED 70 YEARS PANNIKUNNELCHALIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR KARA MULAVOOR VILLAGE. 2. SAJI,S/O.THANKAPPAN AGED 27,DO...DO.. 3. REJI,S/O.THANKAPPAN AGED 30 YEARS, DO...DO.... BY ADV. SRI.P.M.JOSHI SRI.V.A.OMANAKUTTAN RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. SHAJI,S/O. SHANMUGHAN, PANIAKIL HOUSE, VENNALA PO. 2. SMT.USHA NAIR,8/B PANTHEDU APARTMENTS, MAROTTICHODU,EDAPPALLY, KOCHI-24. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD 2ND FLOOR, PMS BUILDING,ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERY 683 104. BY ADV. SRI.R.RENJITH SRI.T.J.LAKSHMANAN IYER SMT.SREELEKHA.S.KUMAR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC,J. W.P.(C)NO. 37913 of 2007 DATED THIS THE 8th DAY OF FEBRUARY 2008 JUDGMENT The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P8,an order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha dismissing I.A.No.3013/20007 dated 30/4/2007 filed by the petitioners. The claim was filed initially by one Devaki. During the pendency of the claim petition, she expired and the present claimants got themselves impleaded as additional claimants. 2. It is stated that during the pendency of the proceedings, the first witness in the witness schedule expired. In view of the death of the first witness and also on account of the death of the original claimant, the petitioners have filed Ext.P4, an additional witness list, which was declined to be accepted by the Tribunal by the impugned order. 3. In Ext.P8, the Tribunal has stated that the petitioner has not given any reasons for receiving the witness schedule. It is also stated that the petitioners did not explain why they decided W.P.C.37913/2007 -2- not to examine the other witnesses included in the additional schedule by including them in the earlier schedule and examining them. For lack of these averments, the Tribunal concluded that the the attempt of the petitioner seems to be to delay the proceedings. 3. It is true, as stated by the Tribunal, that Ext.P6 affidavit filed by the petitioner is bereft of essential averments justifying acceptance of additional witness schedule. However, in the writ petition, the petitioners have given their explanation for the same. In view of this, I feel that the petitioners should be given an opportunity to substantiate their case by examining witnesses. Therefore, quahsing Ext.P8, I dispose of the writ petition directing that the petitioners would be permitted to adduce evidence by examining the witnesses included in Ext.P4 witness schedule. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE ks. K.R.UDAYABHANU,J. =================== CRL.A.NO. OF 200 JUDGMENT DATE: ......2006 =====================