IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD MARCH 2010 / 12TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 2371 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.641/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., THIRUVALLA. BY ADV.MR.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS: ------------------------------------------------- 1. LEELAMMA VARGHESE, MALIYIL VEEDU, MANJADI POST, KOMPADY, THIRUVALLA. 2. SOJI VARGHESE, AGED 22 YEARS, MALIYIL VEEDU, MANJADI POST, KOMPADY, THIRUVALLA. R1 BY ADVS. MR. K.SHAJ, MR.SAJJU.S. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/03/2010 ALONG WITH MACA NO.2461 OF 2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2371 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.2461 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)Nos.641/1999 and 642/1999. It is very interesting to note that the very same tribunal though different presiding officers had proceeded at a tangent to determine the case. The claimants, against whom appeals are preferred are the wife and children of the auto driver. He moved a petition under Section 163 A as O.P.No.1049/2001 contending for the position that while he was driving the auto rickshaw, a car came and hit on the auto rickshaw resulting in injuries to him. But the car could not be identified. So, the husband is impleaded as the driver by the claimants in these petitions. It is very specifically pleaded in their case that there was no hit by a car on the auto rickshaw and that the accident took place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the auto rickshaw and the vehicle overturned when it applied : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2371 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.2461 OF 2008 sudden break. The very same claimants had produced Exts.A1 to A3 in support of their case and the first information statement given by the driver of the auto rickshaw specifically indicates involvement of a car in the accident. The tribunal simply brushes it aside though the claimants have produced the documents in support of their respective contentions. 2. I think the approach of the tribunal is totally erroneous, but I do not want to make any commend at this stage for the reason that I want to give an opportunity to the parties to produce better evidence for a proper decision in the matter in accordance with law. 3. Therefore I set aside the award passed by the tribunal and remit the case back to the tribunal for fresh consideration and parties be permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2371 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.2461 OF 2008 accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 5.4.2010. Send back the records immediately. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2371 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.2461 OF 2008