IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JULY 2010 / 14TH ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 1151 of 2010() ----------------------- OPMV.382/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OP(MV): ------------------------------------------------------------ ANILKUMAR, S/O.PARAMESWARAN, THATTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PAZHOOKARA DESOM, ANNALLUR VILLAGE & P.O, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP(MV): -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOY JOHN, S/O.JOHN, CHAKKALAMATTATH HOUSE, ANNALLUR.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. HARIS, S/O.MUHAMMED SAKARIYA, PULIYATH HOUSE, ANNALLUR.P.O. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., CHALAKUDY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1151 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T After going through the award I feel that there is some thing to be looked into with the aid of medical evidence and as the doctor had not been examined it can be sent back. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) 382/07. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.43,350/-. It is against the quantum the claimant has come up in appeal. The grievance of the learned counsel for the appellant is that though the claimant produced a disability certificate showing the disability at 11% the Tribunal did not consider it and held that it stands not proved. He would draw my attention to the sentence in paragraph 6, “Of course the petitioner was seen in open Court on the date of trial and it was noticed that his left wrist is slightly stiff but firm grip and rotation are possible.” It is a M.A.C.A. 1151 OF 2010 -:2:- matter where the Tribunal should have insisted for medical evidence and the claimant should have adduced medical evidence and there is no point in inviting all the parties to this Court and then remand the case. Therefore I set aside the award and remit the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to the petitioner to examine himself as well as the doctor in support of his contentions and if any counter evidence is to be adduced let it also be permitted and the appellant is directed to take out notice to all concerned from the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.8.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-