IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1500 of 2004()
1. MATHEW @ BENNY, KUNNUMMEL HOUSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JOHNSON @ JOHNEY, CHITTILASSERY HOUSE,
... Respondent
2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL
For Respondent :SMT.SARAH SALVY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/07/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1500 OF 2004
---------------------
Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 763/00 whereby
the Tribunal had dismissed the claim petition. The claimant was the
rider of a motor bike. According to him, when it reached the place of
accident a jeep which was proceeding ahead of him suddenly turned
towards the right side without any signal as a result of which there
was a hit on his bike resulting in sustainment of injuries to the
claimant. The police first charge sheeted the driver of the jeep. The
Tribunal just considering the damages of the vehicle, without any oral
evidence before it, came to the conclusion that it was the bike that
had hit on the jeep. It is true that the damage to the jeep is on the
right side. There are various ways by which there can be scratches
and bend on the right side of the jeep. The jeep can hit the bike or
the bike can hit the jeep. Both possibilities cannot be ruled out. But it
is a matter which requires evidence with the scene mahazar. When
there is a specific pleading that the jeep was trying to turn to the right
side without signal unless there is a turning on the right side
MACA No.1500/04 2
ordinarily no vehicle will turn to the right side. It will give indication
about the truthlessness of the claim. It is quite possible that when
the jeep is coming from the opposite direction and the motorcyclist is
not able to overtake, then also there is a possibility of motor bike
hitting on the jeep. These are all matters which can be proved by
evidence. A mere production of scene mahazar or Motor Vehicle
Inspector’s report may not be a conclusive proof to hold the question
of negligence. Therefore, I feel this a fit case where an opportunity
can be given to both sides to establish their case by cogent and
convincing evidence before the Tribunal by examination of the
parties.
Therefore, I set aside the award and remand the case back to
the Tribunal for fresh consideration with opportunity to both sides to
adduce oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective
contentions.
Parties are directed to appear before Tribunal on 18/8/2008.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No.1500/04 3