IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH OCTOBER 2010 / 12TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1005 of 2007() ----------------------------------- OPMV.149/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER: -------------------------------------------- HAMEED @ HAMEED RAWTHER, MUTTATHU MANNIL, MULAKKUZHA P.O., CHENGANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.HARILAL SRI.R.GOPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS @ BABY, MULAVELIL VEETTIL, KUTTOOR, THIRUVALLA. 2. C.V.IDICULLA, CHIRAYIL VEEDU, THIRUVALLA. 3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., CHANGANACHERRY. R1 & R2 BY ADVS. SRI.SATHISH NINAN, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.JENNIS STEPHEN . R3 BY SRI.S.MAMMU THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1005 of 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in OP(MV) No. 49/1997. The claimant, a passenger in an autorickshaw sustained injuries and the Tribunal has rejected the claim and it is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. With the help of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, I had attempted to analyse the materials. At the outset, I may like to point out that there is no pleading in the written statement filed by the insurance company regarding the negligence. But I am conscious of the fact that in a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicle Act, one has to plead and prove negligence. It appears that a belated case was developed at the stage of evidence to the effect that the Autorickshaw driver moved rashly and negligently and hit on a jeep. The jeep belonged to the Government of Kerala. The Tribunal held that since the jeep belonged to the government of Kerala, the police wanted to save that driver and therefore, chargesheeted the auto driver. Nobody M.A.C.A. No.1005 of 2007 2 has such a case and therefore, the Tribunal cannot jump to such a conclusion. It is desirable to give an opportunity to all concerned to produce documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions to prove how the accident occurred and who was negligent. The police charge also be taken into consideration. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh trial. For the said purpose, all concerned shall be permitted to produce documentary or oral evidence in support of their contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 08.11.2010. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln.