IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 316 of 2010()
1. ROSAMMA SIMPSON AND ANOTHER
... Petitioner
Vs
1. MARGRET BINDHU
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.SHAIJAN C.GEORGE
For Respondent :SRI.K.A.SEBASTIAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :30/09/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 316 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 30th day of September, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the
Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)
224/03. It is the case of the claimant that a Maruthi
Car driven by the 2nd respondent hit on the motorbike
ridden by the husband of the claimant and thereby she
sustained injuries. On the other hand the respondent
would contend that the negligence was absolutely on
the side of the husband of the claimant and therefore
the petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. The
Tribunal after analysis of the materials found the driver
of the car negligent and awarded a sum of Rs.17,978/-.
The respondents, aggrieved by the said decision had
come up in appeal.
2. Heard both the sides. The accident had taken
place in a junction which joins Mattancherry Fort Kochi
M.A.C.A. 316 OF 2010
-:2:-
road to Fort Kochi-Amaravathi road. The motorcycle
was coming from east to west and was turning to the
north to join Fort Kochi Amaravathi road. The car was
coming from Nazareth Fort-Kochi road and it was to join
the junction to proceed to Mattancherry-Fort Kochi road.
3. In order to get an idea of the location I
appointed a Commissioner and he had submitted a plan
and report in this matter. The place of accident is
located by him as shown in the scene mahazar by
marking the points. It is almost on the northern side of
the Mattancherry Fort Kochi road. Now the question
that may have to be considered is whether the
claimant’s husband was justified in moving towards the
northern extremity if it is the place of accident or
whether he had to comply with further statutory
requirements. So also the movement of the car and it’s
turning also requires correction. Unfortunately in this
case though the matter is very seriously contested the
M.A.C.A. 316 OF 2010
-:3:-
respondent did not adduce any evidence so as to make
the Tribunal understand their real stand. Now the plan
and report filed by the Commissioner is available.
Therefore the Court can understand the position of the
place and then try to find out the place of accident and
then decide the question of negligence in accordance
with law. Therefore I am inclined to grant an
opportunity for both the sides to adduce further
evidence in this matter.
4. So the award under challenge is set aside and
the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a
direction to permit both the parties to adduce
documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their
respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in
accordance with law.
5. While sending back the records the Registry is
also directed to forward the Commissioner’s original
plan and report to the trial court so that the parties can
M.A.C.A. 316 OF 2010
-:4:-
let in evidence on the basis of the same and
unnecessary expenses again on that regard can be
avoided. Being a matter of the year 2003 the Tribunal
shall try to expedite the matter and dispose it of within
a period of three months from the date of first
appearance of the parties. Parties are directed to
appear before the Tribunal on 25.10.2010.
The amount which is deposit shall remain in
deposit until a final decision is taken in the matter.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-