IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2010 / 29TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 944 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1276/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT IN OP: --------------------------------------- SIVAN, S/O. KANDOTHY, PATHICKAL HOUSE, PINDIMANA KARA,PINDIMANA VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OP: --------------------------------- 1. BABY, S/O. PAULOSE, KUTHAMATTATHIL HOUSE, KOZHIPPILLY KARA, VARAPPETTY VILLAGE. 2. P.I. JACOB, S/O. ISSAC, PAREKKARA HOUSE, PAREKKARA MOTOR SERVICE, KOTHAMANGALAM. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., ALUVA BRANCH. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ---------------------------------------------- C.M.Application No. 972 OF 2008 & M.A.C.A.No.944 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 19th DAY OF JANUARY, 2010 O R D E R/J U D G M E N T Basant, J. This petition is to condone the delay of 160 days in filing an appeal. Service is complete. Appellant is the claimant. There is no representation for the respondents. We are satisfied,in the circumstances of the case, that a lenient view can be taken, petition for condonation of delay can be allowed and the appeal itself can be disposed of straightaway. This application is in these circumstances allowed. Delay is condoned. M.A.C.A.NO.944/08 2. Claimant is the appellant. The claimant was the rider of a motor vehicle involved in the accident. There was a pillion rider also. The motor cycle which the claimant was riding and the said pillion was travelling was involved in an accident with a vehicle owned by the 2nd respondent insured M.A.C.A.NO.944/08 -2- with the 3rd respondent and driven by the 1st respondent. 3. The Tribunal, strangely we must say, took up the claims by the rider and the pillion separately. Separate awards were passed. Both claims were dismissed on the ground that the appellant herein is negligent. The pillion rider preferred an appeal and a Division Bench of this Court earlier vide judgment dated 26.11.2008 has set aside the said award and had sent the matter back to the court below. That claim – O.P.(MV)No.1343/02 was pending before the M.A.C.T., Muvattupuzha and the same has now been disposed of allowing the claim in part, it is submitted. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant would have accepted the said finding of attribution of equal negligence of both drivers. But, at any rate, the matter has to be sent back to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law to ascertain the quantum of compensation payable. 4. We accept the request of the learned counsel for the appellant. We set aside the impugned award and send M.A.C.A.NO.944/08 -3- the same back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 5. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 01.03.2010 to continue the proceedings. The Tribunal shall dispose of the claim as expeditiously thereafter as possible- at any rate within a period of three months from that date. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. R.BASANT, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn