High Court Kerala High Court

K.K.Muraleedharan vs Vincent P.Paul on 26 May, 2008

Kerala High Court
K.K.Muraleedharan vs Vincent P.Paul on 26 May, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA.No. 355 of 2003(C)


1. K.K.MURALEEDHARAN, AGED 47 YEARS,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. VINCENT P.PAUL, PANAKUZHI HOUSE,
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.ANIL S.RAJ

                For Respondent  :SRI.M.A.HAKIM SHAH

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :26/05/2008

 O R D E R
                          M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
                          --------------------------
                        M.F.A. No. 355 OF 2003
                            ---------------------
                Dated this the 26th day of May, 2008

                              JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam, in OP(MV) No.1610/96

whereby the court below dismissed the claim petition. It is the case

of the appellant that he had stopped the vehicle behind a tanker lorry

as there was a traffic block and the driver of the tanker lorry reversed

it without any care and the same hit on the autorickshaw which

resulted in injury to him. Though notice of appearance was issued,

nobody entered appearance and the court with the available

materials, dismissed the claim as a frivolous petition.

2. I feel the court has been little harsh on the appellant.

There were atleast some materials produced before the court in the

form of first investigation report, scene mahazar, police charge,

wound certificate, discharge summary etc. When such is the

situation, the court should have viewed it in that ankle and should not

have jumped to the conclusion that it is a false case. It is true that

the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector report is not produced.

Similarly the witness of the hospital had deposed that the original of

MFA No.355/03 2

the wound certificate is missing but the case sheet and other papers

are produced. The mistake committed herein is by deleting the

driver. When the whole factum of the accident is denied it is always

desirable that the driver is in the party array. Similarly it is not known

why even the Insurance company has kept silent. Most probably all

these facts made the court to feel that everything is not all right and

therefore dismissed the application. But, I feel it was not a case

which should have been dismissed in that way and an opportunity

should have been given to the appellant to establish the fact.

3. Therefore, I set aside the award passed by the Tribunal

and remit the case back to the Tribunal with a direction to the

appellant herein to implead the driver of the tanker lorry and again

issue notice to the owner and the Insurance company and produce

relevant documents and adduce material evidence in support of their

respective contentions.

Parties are directed to appear before the court below on

3.7.08.

M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps

MFA No.355/03 3

MFA No.355/03 4

MFA No.355/03 5