IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 MACA.No. 602 of 2004() ---------------------- OP(MV)No.24/1993 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.3 ------------------------------------------ ELIYAS, S/O. JAMAL MUHAMMED, ORUMKUZHI VEEDU, THUNNOOR VILLAGE, PALODE, NEDUMANGAD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.SATHEESH KUMAR SRI.T.A.UNNIKRISHNAN RESPONDENTS: APPLICANTS & RESPONDENTS 1,2, 4 & 5 ------------------------------------------------ 1. SHOBI, PINOOR THETARIKATHU VEEDU, KARAKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. RAJITHA, MINOR, DO. 3. RAMESH, MINOR, DO. 4. C.N.AJITH S/O. NARAYANAN, (DELETED) DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., UZHAVOOR, PALAI, KOTTAYAM. 5. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, DIVISIONAL MANAGER, L.M.S.COMPOUND, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. ZAINUDDEEN S/O. AHAMMEDKUNJU, VENGAKUNNIL, H.NO.VIII/495, PERINGAMMALA. MACA.No. 602 of 2004 :2: 7. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., T.C.26/1486, 2ND FLOOR, GOVT.PRESS ROAD, TRIVANDRUM. (RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE MINORS AND ARE REPRESENTED BY THE 1ST PETITIONER, THEIR MOTHER AND GUARDIAN) (4TH RESPONDENT IS DELETED VIDE ORDER DATED 7.11.05 IN I.A.NO.3229/2005 AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT) BY ADV. SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SRI.P.V.ELIAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & K.HEMA, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.602 OF 2004 ------------------------------------- Dated 9th January, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . A 36 year old man, mason by profession, died in a motor accident. His wife and two minor children along with mother filed the application for compensation. Mother died subsequently. Originally, the application was filed against two persons, i.e., one Ajith as the owner-cum-driver and United India Insurance Company as the insurer of the motor vehicle as the claimants were not aware who was the real owner of the motor cycle. But, later, when police records were produced, appellant was arrayed as third respondent (owner of the motor cycle), one Zainudeen was arrayed as the fourth respondent (rider of the motor vehicle) and New India Assurance Company Ltd. was arrayed as the fifth respondent (the insurance company of the motor vehicle). Police records shows that the vehicle was taken possession by the appellant and after considering the charge-sheet it was found that the fourth respondet before the Tribunal was riding the motor cycle. Appellant and 4th respondent did not file any written statement before the Tribunal and remained ex-parte. Fifth respondent filed a written statement and produced insurance policy which shows that there was a valid insurance policy taken by the appellant from 11.11.1992 to MACA.602/2004 2 10.11.1993. But, the accident occurred on 30.9.1992 and there was no valid coverage of insurance on the date of accident. So, Tribunal held that both third (appellant) and fourth respondents before the Tribunal are responsible for the liability. Insurance company clearly averred and proved that there was no valid policy at the time of accident. Therefore, Tribunal directed that the appellant and his driver, fourth respondent, are jointly and severally liable to pay the amount against which appellant filed this appeal. Orally it was submitted that he was not the real owner at the time of accident and he purchased the vehicle without knowledge that it was involved in a motor accident, but, it was not stated in the appeal memorandum. Appellant did not file written statement before the Tribunal and also did not contend that on the date of the accident he was not the owner and somebody else was the owner or there was valid insurance policy taken by him on the date of accident. The accident occurred one and a half decades back. Poor widow and two minor children are deprived of the benefits in view of the filing of the appeal. There was no pleading even in the appeal memorandum that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and such contention was also not proved by production of any acceptable documents. We also note that the appeal memorandum prepared in 2001 was filed in 2004 with MACA.602/2004 3 a petition to condone the delay of 748 days and considering the oral submission delay was condoned to hear the matter on merit. There is no substance in the contention raised in the appeal memorandum. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE K.HEMA JUDGE tks