IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 2606 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.415/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPLICANT: -------------------------------------------- CHANDRA BABU,S/O. PUSHPAKARAN, MARUVATHOOR KONATHU, PLAVILA THEKKE PUTHEN VEEDU, CHINIVILA, KOOVALASSERY P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.R.V.SREEJITH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. VALSALA, W/O.BABU, KANDATHILNINNA VADAKKATHIL PUTHEN VEEDU,MULLUCADU, THIRUPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 2. RAJARATHA DAS, S/O. SALAYAL, KULATHANNI VEEDU, CHANIYIL, KANJIRAMKULAM VILLAGE,THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 3. THE MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY, THAKARAPRAMBU ROAD, THIRUVANANTHAPRUAM. 4. BAIJU, S/O.KUTTAPPAN, KUSUJU BHAVAN, CHINIVILA, MARANALLOOR. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP, SRI.V.VIJULAL. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2606 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in OP(MV)No.415/2003. It was an application filed by the pillion rider in a vehicle bearing Registration No.KL-01-S-4827. It is contended that the vehicle met with an accident when there was a collision between the motor cycle and a mini lorry. I am not giving the number of the mini lorry for the reason that it is in dispute now. The learned Tribunal after exhaustive consideration dismissed the application and it is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard all concerned. The point that arises for determination is which is the vehicle that had hit the motor bike. I may say this is a case where much has to be said regarding either bonafide mistake or calculated mistake. The mini lorry number is given as KL-06-9744. Now it is submitted that the vehicle involved in the accident is KL-06- 9244. At the time of evidence before the trial court, no charge sheet was available, but now a copy of the charge : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2606 OF 2009 sheet is also filed before this Court for perusal. In the charge sheet the vehicle number is KL-06-9744 and in another place it is KL-06-9244. Admittedly the owner of the vehicle KL-06-9244 is one Valsala. She is the person, who according to the charge sheet, has got the vehicle released from the police station. So prima facie materials are there to show that the vehicle belonged to the said Valsala. 3. I am not elaborating on that for the reason that only photocopies of the documents are available before me and I also find a large number of statements wherein also the vehicle number is also shown as KL-06-9244. If KL-06- 9244 is the vehicle involved in the accident, necessarily Valasala will be owner of the vehicle and it is a matter that has to be probed into for deciding whether the said vehicle was having a valid insurance policy also has to be considered again. 4. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal remitting the case back to it with a direction to permit all concerned to produce both documentary as well as : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2606 OF 2009 oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then decide the matter in accordance with law. I also direct the Tribunal to find out why these type of mistakes are happening in various documents and why the authorities concerned are not worried about the fate of the person who has met with an accident. If negligence is proved on the part of the authorities, let the matter be reported to the higher authorities for appropriate action as well. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.7.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.2606 OF 2009