IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 962 of 2005 ----------------------------------- OPMV.1377/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANTS : APPELLANTS/PETITIONERS IN O.P.(MV): 1. VIJAYA PANICKER, VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE, (KARTHIKA), EAST CHALUKUDY DESOM, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. VALSALA PANICKER, W/O. VIJAYA PANICKER VADAKKEVEETTIL HOUSE (KARTHIKA), EAST CHALAKUDY DESOM, CHALAKUDY VILLAGE, MUKUNADAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN OP (MV): 1. MANAGING DIRECTOR, KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORTION, FORT, TRIVANDRUM. 2. SHAJI, S/O. KUNIPILLA, THANNIMOTTIL MELETHIL HOUSE, NEDUMANKAVU DESOM, KOODAL VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.V.V.NANDAGOPAL NAMBIAR B/O FOR R1 SRI.JOHNSON P. JOHN, SC, KSRTC FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.962 OF 2005 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The parents of the deceased victim of a road traffic accident are the appellants. The petition filed by the appellants under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation on account of the death of their only son was dismissed by the Tribunal holding that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the deceased himself who was riding the two wheeler. In other words, the Tribunal did not accept the contention of the appellants that the driver of the bus (respondent No.2) belonging to the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation was responsible for the accident. 2. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation and perused the lower court records. 3. It appears that the deceased was riding his two wheeler with a pillion rider from south towards north. The KSRTC bus was also proceedings in the same direction ahead of the two wheeler. According to the appellants, the accident occurred when the driver of the bus suddenly swerved his vehicle towards right as the deceased was trying to overtake. (It also appears that an ambassador car was also proceeding towards north to south at that time.) In the process of overtaking, the bus hit the two wheeler. The deceased lost control of his vehicle and both himself and the pillion rider were thrown off the M.A.C.A.No.962 OF 2005 :: 2 :: vehicle. A which was coming from the opposite direction ran over both. The pillion rider managed to escape with some injuries while the son of the appellants who was riding the two wheeler, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. 4. We do not propose to refer to or deal with the other materials which were available before the Tribunal. We have perused them. It has to be remembered that the claim petition was filed under Section 163A of the Act. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel, the view taken by the Tribunal that only the two wheeler was involved in the accident does not appear to be apparently correct, since the mahazar prepared by the police will show that there were some scratches on the body of the bus which were suggestive of a hit by a two wheeler. Yet again, we refrain from making any further comment on this aspect. 5. It may be noticed that the driver of the bus never bothered to step into the box and explain as to how the accident occurred. In the absence of any evidence adduced by the driver of the alleged offending vehicle, the Tribunal was, in our view, was not justified in jumping the conclusion that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the rider of the two wheeler. In our view, the matter requires a fresh consideration. 6. Therefore, the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We hasten to add that the observations made by us in this judgment are only our M.A.C.A.No.962 OF 2005 :: 3 :: prima facie impressions. It will be open to the Tribunal to take a fresh decision in the matter, in accordance with law, on the basis of the evidence that already is available on record and that the parties may adduce, further if so advised. The Tribunal shall pass a fresh award in the matter as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on November 25, 2010. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Registry shall send back the lower court records to the Tribunal forthwith. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes