IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1638 of 2006(C) ------------------------------- OPMV.833/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------- SIJU.V.D., S/O.DIVAKARAN, VADAVOOR HOUSE, MULAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------ 1. V.K.MANI, VADAVOOR HOUSE, MULAVOOR PO., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. PRASAD, S/O.NARAYANAN, MATTANAMIL HOUSE, MULAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1638 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)833/02. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike an auto rickshaw hit on the motorbike resulting in injuries to him. In the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A10 were marked. No oral evidence was adduced. The Tribunal relied on a statement in the wound certificate to the effect that it did not contain an endorsement to the effect that there was an auto rickshaw involved in the accident. The Tribunal also found that as no damage had been caused to the auto rickshaw or the motorbike, there is no probability of an accident having taken place. But the Tribunal did not give any credence, which is expected to be given to the charge sheet or the judgment of a criminal Court wherein the accused enters appearance, pleaded guilty and convicted and sentenced to pay fine. I am conscious of the fact that a M.A.C.A. 1638 OF 2006 -:2:- judgment of a criminal Court may not be binding on a Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. But when a set of documents produced by the investigating agency is relied on there cannot be a compartmentalization of accepting some and rejecting some other. When such a situation arises it is always desirable that the Tribunal insists for independent evidence in the case and then decide the matter in accordance with the evidence available before it thereby getting explanation and adding credibility to the documents that are produced by the parties. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that if an opportunity is given he will be able to substantiate the contention raised by him in the petition. I am inclined to give him an opportunity. Therefore I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit both parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the M.A.C.A. 1638 OF 2006 -:3:- Tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.9.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-