IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 3RD OCTOBER 2008 / 11TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 2210 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.9/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT IN THE OP --------------------------------------- REGHU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN, PERUMBANAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, AREEKKARA P.O., KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN OP -------------------------------------- 1. SAJEEVAN.V.R., S/O.RAMAN, VALIYAKANDATHIL HOUSE, MANGALATHUTHAZHAM, KOOTHATTUKULAM. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2210 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 9/03. The claimant was a rider of a motor bike. It collided with an autorickshaw resulting in injuries to him. The 1st respondent in the claim petition remained ex parte. The Insurance Company alone had contested the case. Insurance Company, in spite of notice in the delay condonation application, has not chosen to appear before this court. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the scene of occurrence is not clear and further that the rider of the vehicle did not have a proper driving licence and therefore attributed negligence on the claimant and dismissed the claim application. 3. I do not understand why the Tribunal has stated that the scene of occurrence is not clear from the scene mahazar. A perusal of the scene mahazar would reveal that the road is having a width of 10.50 meters at the place of accident. It is specifically stated that the accident had taken place one meter 52 centimeters east of the western tar end. It also describes about the wide road margin on both sides. It also specifically states that there is a clear vision of 100 meters on the road. I think the materials necessary for finding out the scene of occurrence is there in the scene mahazar. There are catena of decisions wherein the courts have held that mere absence of a driving licence MACA No. 2210/06 2 will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the said driver was negligent unless there is some evidence to show that the same has resulted in the accident. I am afraid that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in the proper perspective. Certainly the claimant should have mounted the box and given some evidence regarding negligence when it is disputed. But the materials available tends me to give an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the case. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all parties to produce documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the Insurance Company has chosen not to appear before this court, I direct the claimant to take out notice to the Insurance Company after he appears before the Tribunal. Appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.11.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 2210/06 3