IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 22ND MAY 2008 / 1ST JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 983 of 2000() --------------------- OPMV.571/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, WAYANAD, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT: RESPONDENTS NO.3: ----------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE MAIN ROAD, P.O.KALPETTA, KALPETTA AMSOM DESOM OF VYTHIRI TALUK, INSURER OF KLW 3784 NO.TRACTOR POLICY NO.NOT KNOWN. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER:RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. P.C.VELAYUDHAN, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.CHAMY, CHERUMKADU, NELLIMUNDA, P.O.MEPPADY, VYTHIRI TALUK, MUPPAINAD AMSOM DESOM. 2. P.P.BHEEMAYYA, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.POYYIYA, PUTHIYAKKADA HOUSE, NELLIMUNDA, P.O. MEPPADY, VYTHIRI TALUK, MUPPAINAD AMSOM DESOM, DRIVER OF KLW 3784 NO.TRACTOR, DRIVING LICENCE NO. NOT KNOWN. 3. THE MANAGER, PODDAR PLANTATION, NELLIMUNDA, RIPPON, P.O. MEPPADY, MUPPAINAD AMSOM, DESOM OF VYTHIRI TALUK, OWNER OF KLW 3784 NO.TRACTOR. BY ADV. SMT.T.D.RAJALAKSHMI SRI.E.R.VENKATESWARAN - R2,R3 SRI.P.N.MOHANAN - R2,R3 SMT.E.VASANDA KUMARI - R2,R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON C.M.P.NO.5498/2000 IN M.F.A.NO.983/2000 DISMISSED 22/05/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 983 OF 2000 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the order of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Wayanad, Kalpetta, in O.P. No.571/93. By the said award the court below has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,500/- with 12% interest. Aggrieved by the said decision the Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. At the request of this court, Sri. Mathew Jacob, Sr. Advocate, had represented the company and argued the matter. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. E.R.Venkiteswaran for the respondents. The point that arises for determination is whether the award passed by the court below requires interference at the hands of this court. I feel it deserves to be interfered for the following reasons. It is the case of the 1st respondent/ petitioner that while he was travelling in the tractor on account of the rash and negligent driving of the driver he fell down and sustained injuries. That factum is totally denied by the other side. Not even a scrap of paper regarding the accident, the scene mahazar or the charge-sheet is produced before the court. But the court below holds that evaluation of evidence satisfies its conscience regarding the negligence of the driver. It is difficult to accept such a finding and therefore it requires interference. MFA NO.983/00 2 3. A claim before the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner is also said to be preferred and one does not know what is the result of the same. One cannot simultaneously proceed in two plat forms for the same injuries sustained. It is also a matter that has to be taken note of if the materials are placed before the Tribunal. As far as the injuries are concerned, even the petitioner is not examined and that only some documents are produced. Therefore an opportunity can be given to the 1st respondent/petitioner to convince the Tribunal regarding the nature of injuries sustained by him and also his entitlement for compensation. Therefore the award suffers from serious infirmity and it is set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the court below for fresh consideration. All parties are permitted to produce documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Tribunal is directed to enter into a finding regarding the entitlement. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 1.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MFA NO.983/00 3 MFA NO.983/00 4 MFA NO.983/00 5