IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH MARCH 2008 / 29TH PHALGUNA 1929 MACA.No. 314 of 2006(A) ----------------------- OPMV.981/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: -------------------------- KUMARAN P.V., S/O. VARGHESE, PAZHAYIDATH HOUSE, PAMPAKKUDA POST, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN SRI.BASIL MATHEW RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------- 1. T.M. PAULOSE, S/O. MATHAI, THEKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAMPAKKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. PINTU PAUL, S/O. PAULOSE, THEKKUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAMPAKKUDA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., POST BOX NO.6, MEDICAL MISSION JUNCTION, KOLENCHERRY. BY ADV. SRI.SUBAL J.PAUL SRI.JOHN ABRAHAM SRI.M.A.GEORGE THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: K.PADMANABHAN NAIR,J. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.314 OF 2006 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH, 2008 J U D G M E N T Heard. Admitted. Adv.Shri Subal J. Paul takes notice for respondents 1 and 2. Adv.Shri M.A.George takes notice for the 3rd respondent. 2. The appellant filed a petition claiming compensation alleging that he sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 23.12.2000. It was alleged that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. Owner and driver did not contest the matter. Insured alone contested the matter. Insurer admitted the existence of a valid policy but denied the occurrence of the accident and contended that the vehicle was not involved in any accident as alleged in the petition. The quantum of compensation claimed was also disputed. The Tribunal took a view that the appellant failed to establish that he sustained injuries in the motor accident and hence dismissed the petition. Challenging that award this appeal is filed. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that immediately after the incident, the petitioner was taken to a local M.A.C.A.NO.314/06 2 hospital. The doctor attached to that hospital gave only first aid and directed the persons who brought the appellant to that hospital to take the appellant to a better equipped hospital for better management. It is submitted that, that is the reason why in Exhibit A3 wound certificate, it happened to be recorded that the appellant was referred from a local hospital. It is submitted that the wound certificate was prepared without any delay and the mere fact that there was failure on the part of the Police to register a case is not a ground to dismiss the application. Neither the petitioner, nor the respondent adduce any evidence. 4. After hearing both sides, I am of the view that it is only just and proper that one more opportunity be afforded to the appellant to adduce evidence to substantiate his contentions. For that purpose the case has to go back. In the result, the appeal is partly allowed. The award passed by the Tribunal dismissing O.P.No.(MV)No.981/01 is hereby set aside. The case is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law after affording both sides an opportunity to amend the pleadings or to adduce further evidence,if so advised. The parties shall appear in the Court below on 30.4.2008. K.PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. dsn