2025:KER:29662 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR THURSDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 13TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 20.01.2016 IN OPMV NO.630 OF 2010 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PUNALUR APPELLANTS: 1 LATHIKA AGED 46 YEARS W/O. SASI, MARUTHIMOOTTIL VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT,(PRESENTLY RESIDING AT KOCHUPADINJATTATHIL VEEDU, CHENGAMANADU, KOTTARAKKARA). 2 ARAVIND.S S/O. SASI,MARUTHIMOOTTIL VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT 3 ARASHA.S D/O. SASI,(MINOR),MARUTHIMOOTTIL VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. 4 JANAKI M/O. SASI,MARUTHIMOOTTIL VEEDU, ALAYAMON P.O,ANCHAL, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.ANCHAL C.VIJAYAN RESPONDENTS: 1 SAJI S/O. PAPPACHAN, THONIKKATTU PADINJAREKKARA,PAZHAKULAM P.O, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT,PIN - 691 523. 2 SANTHOSH 2025:KER:29662 2 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 S/O. KUTTAPPAN, MINI MANDIRAM, KARINGANNOOR P.O,VELINALLOOR, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 516. 3 PURUSHOTHAMAN KOCHUMULEKKAL PADINJATTETHIL, NARIYAPURAM P.O,PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT, PIN - 689 513. 4 KALADHARAN S/O. GOPALA PILLAI, KALADHARA MANDIRAM, KARINGANNOOR,OYOOR P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 510. 5 RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI S/O. MADHAVAN PILLAI, KULANGARA VEEDU,KILIMANOOR, KILIMANOOR VILLAGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAMDISTRICT, PIN - 695 601. 6 KISHORE S/O. VISWAMBHARAN, MUKALUVILA PUTHEN VEEDU,CHEPRA, ODANAVATTOM P.O, KOLLAM DISTRICT, PIN - 691 512. 7 JOY S/O. DAVEEDU, REMYA BHAVAN, VATTAYIL NEAR APPUPPANKAVU,THOLIKUZHI, KILIMANNOOR P.O,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT,PIN - 695 601. 8 THE BRANCH MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, KOTTARAKKARA BRANCH,KOTTARAKKARA, PIN - 691 506. BY ADVS. SMT.N.E.BINDU SMT.V.DEEPA SRI.K.V.GOPINATHAN NAIR SRI.R.MURALEEKRISHNAN MALAKKARA SRI.R.SURAJ KUMAR SRI.MATHEW GEORGE VADAKKEL-SC THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: 2025:KER:29662 3 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 3rd day of April, 2025 The petitioners in O.P.(M.V.) No.630/ 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Punalur, are the appellants herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal) 2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by the wife, children and mother of the deceased by name Sasi, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.02.2009. According to them, on 14.02.2009, at about 7.30 p.m., while the deceased was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg.No.KL-02R/1882 along the National Highway No.208 and when it reached near Padinjaretheruvu, Kottarakara, it hit against a tar mixing plant attached to the lorry bearing Reg.No. KL-04J/4183, which was parked negligently and without any signal. As a result of which he sustained serious injuries and later on he succumbed to the injuries, on the same day, while under treatment. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the person in possession, 3rd respondent is the insured, 4th respondent is the driver and 8th 2025:KER:29662 4 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 respondent is the insurer of the lorry. 5th respondent is the owner of the tar mixing plant, 6th respondent is the contractor for tarring the road and 7th respondent is the operator of the tar mixing plant. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the respondents including the driver of the lorry. 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing involvement of the lorry and negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. All the contesting respondents would contend that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the deceased. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A13 and B1. 6. The Tribunal dismissed the claim petition on the ground that there is no evidence to connect the lorry with the accident. 7. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following: Whether the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition? 8. Heard Sri.Anchal C.Vijayan, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners/appellants, Sri. R. Suraj Kumar, appearing for the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, Sri. R. Muraleekrishnan, the learned 2025:KER:29662 5 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent, Sri. K.V Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent and Sri. Mathew George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 8th respondent. 9. According to the petitioners, the above tar mixing unit was brought there and placed at the middle of the road using the lorry KL- 04J/4183, without giving any signals or barricades during night and that is why the accident occurred. 10. The Kottarakkara Police registered crime number 243/2009 in that respect against all the respondents 1 to 7 under Section 304 A IPC and Ext.A6 is the final report filed in that respect. In Ext.A6 there is specific allegation that the accused persons, for the purpose of executing the tarring work, brought the tar mixing plant by tying the same in the lorry bearing Reg. KL- 04J/4183 and thereby committed negligence which resulted in the accident. However, the Tribunal, relying upon Ext.A2 scene mahazar, observed that there was enough width for the road, that several vehicles passed through either sides of the tar mixing plant that the motorcycle of the deceased alone met with an accident and thereby attributed negligence on the deceased himself and ultimately dismissed the claim petition. 11. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant would argue 2025:KER:29662 6 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 that the charge sheet filed by the police in respect of the accident proves prima facie negligence against the accused persons mentioned therein and as such, the finding of the Tribunal to the contrary is against the evidence on record. 12. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the insurer would argue that there was no connection between the lorry KL- 04J/4183 and the accident. It was argued by the learned counsel for the respondent that, at the time of the accident, the above lorry was not there at the place of occurrence. He would also invite my attention to the fact that, even as per the charge sheet, the lorry brought the tar mixing plant at the spot on 12.02.2009 and the accident was on 14.02.2009. Therefore, according to him, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the claim petition. 13. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioners would argue that the said lorry was there at the spot, as its presence is required frequently for removing the tar mixing plant from one place to another as and when the tarring is progressing and that it was removed from there after the accident, deliberately. Therefore, according to him, there is ample evidence to prove that the lorry was present at the spot and that the lorry had, at least indirect connection with the accident. 2025:KER:29662 7 MACA NO. 745 OF 2017 14. However, it is to be noted that in this case no oral evidence was adduced by both sides. In the above circumstances, I am of the considered view that the matter requires fresh disposal by the Tribunal, after giving opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence and as such, the matter is to be remanded back to the Tribunal. 15. In the result, this appeal is allowed, the impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal after affording opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence. 16. Both parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.05.2025. Considering the fact that this O.P is of the year 2010, the Tribunal shall make every to endeavor to dispose of the O.P. at the earliest. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE vnk/-