MACA No.690 of 2014 1 2025:KER:25703 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MACA NO. 690 OF 2014 AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30.11.2013 IN OP(MV) NO.1260 OF 2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL,ATTINGAL APPELLANT/PETITIONER: MUHAMMED ESMAIL S/O. MEERAN SAHIB, KATTAKKARA VEEDU, KIZHAYIKONAM, NELLANADU (PO). BY ADV SRI.C.R.SIVAKUMAR RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1 PETER GABRIEF S/O.KANDOTH K., PETHEL VILLA (KP3/744), KUDAPPANAKUNNU (PO), THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN 695 043. 2 SAJAN KUMAR S/O.YESUDAS, SUNITHA MANZIL, VELLARADA, PIN 695 505. 3 THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, JOTHI SUPER BAAZAR, THODUPUZHA, PIN 685 584. BY ADV SRI.A.R.GEORGE – STANDING COUNSEL THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No.690 of 2014 2 2025:KER:25703 J U D G M E N T Dated this the 26th day of March, 2025 The petitioner in O.P.(M.V.) No.1260 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Attingal is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal). 2. The petitioner filed the above O.P. under Section 166 and 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 18.07.2005. According to the petitioner, on 18.07.2005 at about 5 p.m., while the petitioner was walking along the foot path, he was knocked down by a mini bus bearing Reg.No.KL-01/AB-844 driven by the 2nd respondent in a rash and negligent manner. As a result of the accident, the petitioner sustained injuries. 3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the driver and 3rd respondent is the insurer of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. is Rs.1,50,000/-. MACA No.690 of 2014 3 2025:KER:25703 4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the policy but shown doubt in the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner. It was disputed that the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle. 5. The evidence in the case consists of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11. 6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal as per impugned award dated 30.11.2013 dismissed the claim petition. 7. Aggrieved by the above award of the Tribunal, the petitioner preferred this appeal. 8. Heard Sri. C.R. Sivakumar, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, and Sri.A.R. George, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3rd respondent. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that in the light of the documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A11, the petitioner has proved that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent and also that in the accident the petitioner sustained serious injuries. Ext.A11 is the disability certificate produced by the petitioner in this case showing that in the accident he sustained 11% permanent physical disability. Though no evidence was adduced from the side of MACA No.690 of 2014 4 2025:KER:25703 the respondents, the tribunal doubted the genuineness of the claim of the petitioner on the ground that there was some scrubbing on the date in Ext.A10 casualty card issued from Medical College Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram. 10. There is also a finding by the tribunal that though the accident was on 18.07.2005, there is no evidence to show that the petitioner immediately reported before any hospital. If Ext.A10 is proved, on the very same day, that is on 18.07.2005 itself the petitioner had reported before the Medical College Hospital. The question Ext.A10 is a genuine document or not is the question to be decided in that respect. 11. The learned standing counsel for the insurer raised an argument that the 2nd respondent had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, in the Ext.A4 charge sheet there is no charge against the 2nd respondent in that respect. The learned Standing Counsel submitted that before the tribunal the insurer filed IA No.6646 of 2009 for a direction to the 2nd respondent to produce the driving licence and that the said application was also not disposed by the tribunal. 12. In the above circumstances, the matter requires MACA No.690 of 2014 5 2025:KER:25703 reconsideration by the tribunal. Therefore, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for fresh disposal as per the law after affording opportunities to both sides to adduce evidence. 13. In the result, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal. The parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 05.05.2025. The tribunal shall make every endeavor to dispose of the OP at the earliest, at any rate, within a period of six months from 05.05.2025. Sd/- C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, JUDGE S.M.K.