MENON P.S Vs. REGISTRAR GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV) No.1696/2016 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant in the original petition, and respondents 2 and 3 herein are respondents 3 and 1, respectively, in the said original petition. The original petition was instituted by the 1 st respondent claiming compensation for the damage caused to the High Court vehicle bearing registration No. KL-07-BG-3165 (Innova), which was involved in a road traffic accident. In this OP(MAC), the petitioner challenges Exts. P7 and P8 orders of the Tribunal, by which Exts. P3 and P4 interlocutory applications were dismissed.

(2.) The accident is alleged to have occurred on 9/2/2013 at about 6.00 a.m. at Chembukkavu Junction, near KSFE Office, Ramanilayam, Thrissur. According to the claimant, while the Innova car, used as a Judges' tour vehicle and proceeding from Ernakulam to Kannur, reached the said spot, a Toyota Corolla bearing registration No. TN-10-V-1786, owned by the petitioner and driven by the 3rd respondent, emerged from a side road at high speed and collided with the front portion of the Innova, causing damage to the bumper, bonnet, radiator, condenser, headlight assembly grill, name board, flag post and engine hood. The case of the petitioner, on the other hand, is that the 3rd respondent was travelling from Cheroor towards Ernakulam and, while crossing the road, the High Court vehicle, which was being driven rashly and at excessive speed from Ernakulam towards Kannur, collided with the rear portion of the petitioner's vehicle. It is further asserted that the police authorities had informed the respondents that no case was registered against the 3rd respondent.

(3.) While the claim petition was pending, the petitioner filed Ext.P3 I.A. No.1/2023 seeking to summon the Scientific Assistant who conducted the sample paint comparison test, along with the report prepared in connection with the criminal proceedings, and Ext. P4 I.A. No.2/2023 seeking acceptance of the witness list, including the said expert and the 3rd respondent. The claimant opposed the said applications by filing Exts. P5 and P6 objections, contending that there was no bonafides in the request and that the forensic report was unnecessary for adjudication of the claim.