IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 41 of 2008(A) -------------------------- OPMV.679/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MANJERI. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2,4,5 & 7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MULLAPPALLY MOHAMMED HAJI, S/O ATHANKUTTY HAJI, MULLAPPALLY HOUSE, PONMALA P.O. * 2. MULLAPPALLY MOOSA, S/O ATHANKUTTY HAJI, KOLOTH HOUSE, PONMALA P.O. (DELETED) 3. MULLAPPALLY MOIDEEN, S/O ATHANKUTTY HAJI, MELAPPATTU HOUSE, PONMALA P.O. 4. K.MUKUNDAN, S/O NARAYANAN, KAROTH HOUSE, KARAKUNNU P.O., MANJERI. (DRIVER) 5. K.CHANDRAN DAS, S/O KARUPPAN, PARTNER,KARAKUNNU ROAD WAYS, MANJERI P.O. (OWNER). 6. K.UMMER, S/O ALLAVIKUTTY, PARAPURATH HOUSE, CHENGANOOR, ELAYOOR P.O. 7. KUTTOSA HAJI, S/O ATHANKUTTY HAJI, MULLAPALLY HOUSE, PONMALA P.O. * The name of deceased 2nd respondent is removed from party array vide order dated 15.9.08 in I.A. 2033/08 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 41 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)679/02. The claimants 1 to 3 and the 7th respondent in the claim petition are the owners of the building. The first respondent in the claim petition is the driver. 2nd respondent the owner and the 3rd respondent the insurance company of the bus. It was found that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the first respondent and respondents 1 to 3 in the claim petition were made liable for the same. The 2nd claimant is impleaded as 2nd respondent and he died during the pendency of the case here and the insurance company has got his name deleted by virtue of the order in I.A.2033/08. The accident had taken place as early as on 18.7.97 and the claim petition was filed only in the year 2002 and the Tribunal has passed an award on the basis of the Commissioner's report which was submitted after the M.A.C.A. 41 OF 2008 -:2:- filing of the petition. The award of the Tribunal does not appear to contain the required particulars. Suppose the value is reassessed and depreciation is calculated then there is no further question of granting labour charges for the same. Similarly, the Court should have found what was the age of the building and how the depreciation is arrived at. It is also not seen from the report whether the value estimated is for the entire building or to the damages caused to the building. So the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore I set aside the award and remit it back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration after permitting all concerned to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Unfortunately, the claimants had not chosen to appear before this Court and therefore insurance company is directed to take out fresh notice to them and on appearance of the persons who are alive particulars may be gathered about the legal representatives of the 2nd claimant who died and his legal representatives may also be impleaded as they are entitled to get share of compensation if it is ultimately M.A.C.A. 41 OF 2008 -:3:- allowed. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 16.2.09. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-