IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2210 of 2006()
1. REGHU, S/O.KARUNAKARAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SAJEEVAN.V.R., S/O.RAMAN,
... Respondent
2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY
For Petitioner :SRI.P.V.GEORGE(PUTHIYIDAM)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :03/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 2210 OF 2006
---------------------
Dated this the 3rdday of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor
Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 9/03. The claimant was a
rider of a motor bike. It collided with an autorickshaw resulting in injuries to him.
The 1st respondent in the claim petition remained ex parte. The Insurance
Company alone had contested the case. Insurance Company, in spite of notice
in the delay condonation application, has not chosen to appear before this court.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunal
dismissed the claim petition on the ground that the scene of occurrence is not
clear and further that the rider of the vehicle did not have a proper driving licence
and therefore attributed negligence on the claimant and dismissed the claim
application.
3. I do not understand why the Tribunal has stated that the scene of
occurrence is not clear from the scene mahazar. A perusal of the scene
mahazar would reveal that the road is having a width of 10.50 meters at the
place of accident. It is specifically stated that the accident had taken place one
meter 52 centimeters east of the western tar end. It also describes about the
wide road margin on both sides. It also specifically states that there is a clear
vision of 100 meters on the road. I think the materials necessary for finding out
the scene of occurrence is there in the scene mahazar. There are catena of
decisions wherein the courts have held that mere absence of a driving licence
MACA No. 2210/06
2
will not ipso facto lead to the conclusion that the said driver was negligent unless
there is some evidence to show that the same has resulted in the accident. I am
afraid that the Tribunal has not considered the matter in the proper perspective.
Certainly the claimant should have mounted the box and given some evidence
regarding negligence when it is disputed. But the materials available tends me
to give an opportunity to the appellant to substantiate the case.
Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is
remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all parties to produce
documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions.
Since the Insurance Company has chosen not to appear before this court, I
direct the claimant to take out notice to the Insurance Company after he appears
before the Tribunal.
Appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.11.08.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 2210/06
3