IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 31ST AUGUST 2010 / 9TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 1024 of 2010 ------------------------------------- OPMV.1029/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: ----------------------------------------- KUZHAPPERI KIZHAKKEVEETTIL PRASANNA, D/O.K.K.KUNHIRAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS,PADAPPENGAD.P.O, KOOVERI AMSOM,PADPPENGAD DESOM,TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.T.MADHAVANUNNI SRI.V.A.SATHEESH RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. REJITH REGUNATH,S/O.REGHUNATH, PUZHATHI AMSOM,PALLIKKULAM,P.O.CHIRAKKAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. T.RAMACHANDRAN,POURNAMI,TEMPLE ROAD, P.O.PAYYANNUR,KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,BRANCH OFFICE P.B.NO.32,IST FLOOR,MAIN ROAD,PERUMBA,PAYYANUR.PO, KANNUR DISTRICT. 4. KUNNUMPARAMBIL RAGHAVAN,S/O.VISWAN GURUKKAL,VAYATTUPARAMBA KAD, VAYATTUPARAMBU.P.O,KARUVANCHAL VIA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 5. M.MADHAVI,W/O.RAGHAVAN,KUNNUMPARAMBIL HOUSE,VAYATTUPARAMBA KAVALA,VAYATTUPARAMBA.P.O, KAUVANCHAL VIA,KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1024 OF 2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 31st day of August 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant who claims to be the legally wedded wife of one Babu, S/o K.P.Raghavan, who died in a road traffic accident, filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act seeking compensation. 2. The Tribunal noticed that the parents, brothers and sisters of deceased Babu had already filed a petition seeking compensation in O.P.(MV) No.1096/02 before the same Tribunal. In fact the said claim petition was allowed by the Tribunal by award dated April 2, 2008. 3. When the claim petition filed by the appellant came up for consideration, the Tribunal further noticed that the appellant had not produced any document to show that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased victim. The Tribunal, therefore, directed the appellant to produce a legal heirship certificate. Admittedly, the appellant failed to do so. Resultantly, the claim petition was dismissed by the Tribunal by the impugned award. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the claim petition solely on the ground that she had failed to produce the legal heirship certificate. According to the learned counsel, the appellant had produced marriage certificate and some other M.A.C.A.No.1024 OF 2010 :: 2 :: relevant documents to prove her status as wife of the deceased victim. Therefore, learned counsel contends that the Tribunal ought to have granted some more reasonable time to the appellant to produce the legal heirship certificate. 5. In this context, it may be noticed that the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition on October 5, 2009. When this appeal had come up before us on two or three earlier occasions, we had granted time to the appellant to produce the necessary document atleast before this court. But till date, the appellant has not been successful to obtain the crucial document. Learned counsel submits that it may take some more time to get the legal heirship certificate. We have carefully perused the award passed by the Tribunal. In our view, the Tribunal has not decided one way or the other about the so called status of the appellant. In that view of the matter, we do not find any reason to retain this appeal on the file of this court. We make it clear that it will be open to the appellant to pursue the remedy available to her in accordance with law. With that liberty reserved in favour of the appellant, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes