VINJU RAJ Vs. MUHAMMED SALIM S/O. IBRAHIM,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV) 450/08. The claimant, a passenger in a jeep, sustained injuries in a road accident when it collided with another jeep. The Tribunal found that the claimant is entitled to get 50% of the amount of Rs. 9,250/ - and it is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal.

(2.) HEARD . At the out set I may like to state that the award has been written in the most unsatisfactory manner. When a petition is filed Under Section 166 M.V. Act the Court is bound to conduct an enquiry on the negligence and then answer the issues. Here the question is answered holding that nobody has adduced any oral evidence and that two moving vehicles were involved in an accident and therefore 50% of the negligence has to be attributed. This is not a correct approach of law. Here, one has to blame the claimant also because he did not step into the box, he did not produce the charge sheet and the scene mahazar produced is of no help to decide the question of negligence. It has also to be stated when it is contended that the other driver is also negligent in order to find out the question of negligence the driver, owner and the insurance company of that vehicle should also have been impleaded. Therefore the award requires interference.