High Court Kerala High Court

Ramesan vs P.Rajan on 3 February, 2010

Kerala High Court
Ramesan vs P.Rajan on 3 February, 2010
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA.No. 2360 of 2009()


1. RAMESAN, S/O.RAMANKUTTY, AGED 31
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.RAJAN, S/O.KELU KURUP, PANTHOTTIL
                       ...       Respondent

2. THE UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN

                For Respondent  :SMT.P.K.SANTHAMMA

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

 Dated :03/02/2010

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
                  ...........................................
                  M.A.C.A.No.2360 OF 2009
                 .............................................
           Dated this the 3rd day of February, 2010.

                        J U D G M E N T

This is an appeal preferred against the award of the

Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.592/2004. The

claimant was a pillion rider of a motor cycle and he was

hit by a jeep KLL 6616. The Tribunal had dismissed the

application on the ground that the accident is not properly

proved.

2. I had carefully gone through the documents given

to me by the counsel for the appellant as well as the

insurance company. It is true that in the first Information

Statement there is a mistake which shows that the number

of the vehicle is shown as KLZ 6616. The document which

was made available before me by the insurance company

would reveal that the Additional Motor Vehicle Inspector

has inspected the vehicle KLL6616 and not KLZ 6616.

Similarly there is another mistake in the wound certificate

which would indicate as if that the bike had been hit by a

bus and not by a jeep.

: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.2360 OF 2009

3. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit

that if an opportunity is given to produce AMVI’s report

as well as the charge sheet, the conscience of the court

can be satisfied regarding the accident.

4. I am inclined to grant an opportunity in this case

especially for the reason that there has been amputation of

the left index finger which requires sympathetic

consideration as well and technicality shall not be used to

defeat the ends of justice .

5. Therefore I set aside the award passed by the

Tribunal and remit the case back to the Tribunal with a

direction to the claimant to produce necessary documents,

enter the box and tender evidence in support of the accident.

Equal opportunity be given to the insurance company as

well and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law.

The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on

3.3.2010. If the insurance company is made liable, need

less to say that interim award amount has to be given credit

in the final compensation.

Disposed of accordingly.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE
cl

: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.2360 OF 2009

: 4 :
M.A.C.A.No.2360 OF 2009