IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 2ND ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1970 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.1127/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PUNALUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PUNALUR, REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT ----------------------- 1. JAYANANDAN, S/O.PADMANABHAN, ASHA BHAVAN, CHEMPAKARAMANELLOOR, EDAMULACKAL VILLAGE, ANCHAL. 2. R.RAJU, CHARUVILA VEEDU, THAZHAMEL, ANCHAL P.O. 3. SIMON JOHN, S/O.JOHN, CHARUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, CHEMPAKARAMANALLOOR, ANCHAL P.O. ADV. SRI.REJI MATHEW KAVALAYIL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1970 OF 2006 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 24th day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur in O.P.(M.V) No.1127 of 2001. It is the case of the claimant that while he was travelling as a pillion rider in a motor bike it met with an accident resulting in injuries to him and therefore, claimed compensation and the Tribunal awarded him a sum of Rs.19,532/-. It is against that decision the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. It has also to be stated R1 and R2 did not contest the case at all. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that the alleged accident took place in August 2000. No Police case was registered and only a private complaint preferred after three months which was referred U/s.156(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Therefore, a charge sheet has been filed. According to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company even going by the document produced by the claimant it would reveal that he was riding the bike at the time of the accident. He had referred to the statement in the wound M.A.C.A. NO. 1970 OF 2006 2 certificate as “ If this is the real state of affairs then the claimant has to curse his own fate for the accident and he may not be entitled to get any compensation. In spite of the contentions and the documents the claimant even did not attempt to mount the box to give evidence. This is a fit case where the matter requires fresh consideration. I am not going deep into the merits of the case for the reason that it requires evidence to decide the matter. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to permit to all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.11.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm M.A.C.A. NO. 1970 OF 2006 3 M.A.C.A. NO. 1970 OF 2006 4