IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH OCTOBER 2010 / 15TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1236 of 2010(D) ------------------------------- (OPMV.267/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM) .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER --------------------------------- JAIMON PETER @ JAIMON, S/O.LATE K.C.PATHROSE, AGED 40, ELAYADATHU HOUSE, ARAKKUNNAM (VIA), PIRAVOM, EDAKKATTUVAYAL.P.O. BY ADVS. SRI.K.C.CHARLES SRI.M.POLY MATHAI SRI.VIMAL K.CHARLES RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------------------- 1. T.B.SUDARSANAN, ANNAPOORNI MANDIR, QUILON ROAD, MULLAKKAL, ALAPPUZHA-688 011. 2. C.JAYENDRANATH, S/O.CHANDRASEKHARAN NAIR, AGED 31, THATTAVEETTIL, KADAKKARAPPILLY KARA, KADAKKARAPPILLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA. 4. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., D.O. III, SREELAKSHMI COMPLEX, 15-17, ST.MARK'S ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001. R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS R3 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE R4 BY ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SVS/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ----------------------------------------- M.A.C.A NO.1236 OF 2010 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of October, 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P(MV).No.267 of 1998. The claimant was the driver of the Jeep which got involved in the accident. It is the case of the claimant that, while he was proceeding to the hospital with some injured persons in a fire accident, the car driven by the 2nd respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit on his Jeep resulting in one of the tyres of the Jeep being broken. The First Information Statement was given by the driver of the car and, therefore, he was made the accused in a criminal case. After trial he was acquitted. But unfortunately the Tribunal has proceeded as if the case was registered against the driver of the car and it had ended in acquittal. The learned counsel also would argue that on account of the impact of the accident the tyre had broken and, therefore, necessarily driver of the vehicle would have lost its control and it would have reached the other side of the road. If really that had taken place that may lead to a fact regarding negligence on the car driver. But these are all materials which require cogent M.A.C.A NO.1236 OF 2010 2 evidence. Merely relying on a scene mahazar, it may be possible to hold that there is negligence on one of the parties in these types of cases. It is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the petitions filed to examine witness were dismissed. So I am inclined to grant an opportunity. Therefore, award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 8.11.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mns