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