Maca/2939/2008 Of Ashmath v. Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 30TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 8TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 2939 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.1544/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------ ASHMATH, AGED 30 YEARS, S/O.MAVBULSAB, KOODATHUMKUZHIYIL MEETHAL HOUSE, P.O.CHEROOPPA, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COCHIN. 2. SUDEEP CHARLES JOHN, AGED 33 YEARS, NADUVILA KUNNATH HOUSE PO, KAKKODI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 2939 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30[th] day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor AccidentClaims Tribunal, Kozhikkode in O.P.(M.V) No.1544 of 2006. It has to bestated the approach by the tribunal is totally not satisfactorily in arrivingat a decision of this nature. It has become the practice of this tribunal tofind the negligence at 50% and reduce 30% as if one is vested with thatpower. The tribunal as well this court are all bound by the mandate oflaw and there cannot be such concession that can be granted by thetribunal. As negligence is to be proved the court can insist for materialsand if it is not produced then the matter has to be dismissed. The way init has been dealt with shows that proper methodology is not adopted atall. Equally one has to blame the claimant as well for the reason that hehas not produced the scene mahazar or charge sheet and did not evenmount the box in support of his case. Just because an accident isadmitted it does not ipso facto establish the negligence and it requires proof. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and thematter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration bypermitting both the parties to adduce documentary as well as oralevidence in support of their contentions and then dispose of the matter inaccordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunalon 18.11.2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE.