IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2010 / 19TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 189 of 2009() ---------------------- OP (MV).28/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2 ----------------------- P.J.JOSE, S/O.JOSEPH, PAMPARA HOUSE, P.O.MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SMT.SREEJA SOHAN.K. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ------------------------ 1. BENNY PALIYATHIL, S/O.KURIAKOSE, PALIYATHIL HOUSE, ODENTHODE, P.O.MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. EDATHAZHE SHAJI, S/O.VARKEY, ANUNGOD, KANICHAR AMSOM DESOM, P.O.MANATHANA, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., MAHE. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT FOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.K.N.ABHILASH FOR R2 BY ADV. SRI.P.G.GANAPPAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 189 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T Basheer,J. The only question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the liability to pay the compensation on the appellant, who was admittedly the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal found that Respondent No.1, claimant, was entitled to get a sum of Rs.74,000/- as compensation with 7% interest thereon. 2. The contention of the Insurance Company, (Respondent No.3 herein) was that the owner and driver of the vehicle were liable to pay the compensation, since the policy issued by it in respect of the vehicle was not a “comprehensive policy”. The contention of the Insurer that the claimant was only a passenger in the vehicle, and therefore, the Company was M.A.C.A.No.189 of 2009 2 not liable to indemnify the owner, was accepted by the Tribunal. The above award is under challenge in this appeal. 2. When the appeal is taken up for consideration, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3, Insurance Company, fairly conceded that the policy issued by the Company is in fact a comprehensive policy, and therefore, it is liable to indemnify the owner. 3. In view of the above submission, it is held that Respondent No.3, Insurance Company, shall be liable to indemnify the appellant, the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. In other words, Respondent No.3 shall pay the amount of compensation awarded by the Tribunal to the claimant. The Award of the Tribunal is modified to the above extent. Appeal is allowed in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. nj.