Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, J. 1. Heard.
2. The appeal is by a claimant, whose application for compensation has been dismissed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. His plea was that he was pillion-riding on a motor cycle of which the first respondent was the driver-cum-owner. The second respondent insurer filed objections putting the claimant to prove various pleadings in the claim petition. The first respondent, though appeared before the Tribunal, did not file objections.
3. The Tribunal held that Ext.B1 policy is a package policy, however that, the accident has not been proved to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. Quantum of compensation was also not determined.
4. The proximity between material evidence and the date of the alleged accident may be crucial. At the same time, the final report in the criminal case, though on record, was not marked by the Tribunal. Ext.A3 is the first among the documentary evidences, which is nearest to the date of the accident. That shows that a doctor with post graduation qualification had recorded a particular injury and had referred the patient for better management to another hospital. Ext.A3 records that what was disclosed by the patient was that it is a road traffic accident. That doctor also noticed that no medical legal case was registered. The appellant has the case that immediately after the accident, he had only external injuries which, with passage of time, started developing into pain for the knee and consequential requirement for medical attention, which also included a surgical procedure. He made a complaint before the jurisdictional magistrate about four months after the incident. That complaint was referred to the jurisdictional police for investigation. That led to the lodgment of the first information report and consequential investigation, which led to the final report. With these materials, it was necessary that the appellant/claimant ought to have tendered, at least, oral evidence. There could have been better evidence also to connect the document, which disclosed the incident. The stand of the insurer in the written statement that the claimant was pillion-riding at the time of the accident, may be relevant. Similarly, it may not be proper on the part of the Tribunal to criticize the evidence regarding the treatment as too remote for being considered. We say so because, if the nature of the injuries as pleaded by the claimant were to be proved, necessarily, it would have taken procedures of treatment. However, that is a matter for assessment of appropriate evidence, including oral evidence of the claimant.
5. On the whole, we are satisfied that this is a case where there is manifest miscarriage of justice owing to lack of opportunity for the claimant to adduce the entire relevant evidence. That needs to be rectified, and this is a ground on which we think that ends of justice require that this case is remanded, as a whole, for reconsideration.
In the result, the impugned award is vacated and the case is remitted for further trial with the evidence already on record. Sufficient opportunity shall be given to the parties to adduce further evidence. The parties are directed to mark appearance before the Tribunal on 18.12.2014, so that the Tribunal can schedule consideration of the case, appropriately. This appeal is ordered accordingly.
(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, JUDGE) (BABU MATHEW P. JOSEPH, JUDGE) jg