IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1490 of 2007()
1. K.C.JANARDHANAN, S/O.GOPALAN NAIR,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUNNY @ MATHEW, S/O.JOSEPH, ARIMALIL
... Respondent
2. THE MANAGING PARTNER,
3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
4. MUHAMMED SALIM, S/O.AHAMMED,
5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE
For Respondent :SRI.M.JACOB MURICKAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/12/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 1490 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 3rd day of December, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)516/99. It is
the case of the appellant that while he was travelling as a
pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KRZ/9586 when
it reached the place of accident a bus bearing Reg.No.KL
12/1854 came from behind hit on him resulting in injuries to
him and the rider of the bike. The Tribunal found the
respondent, the rider of the motor bike, as negligent and
directed him to pay the compensation. It is challenging that
point as well as the quantum the appeal is preferred.
2. In the very same accident the rider has filed a
claim petition as O.P(MV).514/99 and the very same Tribunal
has found that the accident had taken place on account of
the negligence of the bus driver and directed the rider of the
bike to be compensated by the insurance company. If that
award has become final, i.e., O.P.514/99, the contention of
M.A.C.A. NO. 1490 OF 2007
-:2:-
negligence will not be available for the owner, driver and
insurer of the bus. Similarly, in paragraph 9 of its award the
Tribunal would state that the FIR, scene mahazar and oral
evidence of PW1 prove that the accident had occurred due to
the rash and negligent driving of the bus by R1. But when it
reaches paragraph 11 it finds negligence on R4. I do not
know how such a different finding can be entered into by a
Tribunal in the very same award. So the matter is totally in
a state of confusion and therefore the award is liable to be
set aside. Since the claimant is challenging the quantum
that also has to be considered. Therefore the award under
challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the
Tribunal for fresh consideration after affording equal
opportunity to all concerned to produce both documentary as
well as oral evidence in support of their respective
contentions, thereafter the Tribunal shall hear both sides and
dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are
directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6.1.09.
The MACA is disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-