IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 MACA.No. 2217 of 2006 -------------------------------------- OPMV.697/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT & R1, 4, 6 AND 7: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. E.K.ABHILASH, S/O. KRISHNANKUTTY, MOLATHU PARAMBIL HOUSE, MAMALA POST, KAKKAD VIA., THIRUVANKULAM. 2. H.ABDUL SALAM, S/O. HANEEFA, THUNDIL VADAKKETHIL HOUSE, T.K.M.C. POST, KARICODE, KOLLAM. 3. SHIBU, S/O. SUPRAN, MOLATH HOUSE, KAKKAD KARA, MAMALA POST, THIRUVANIYOOR VILLAGE. 4. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. 5. T.K.ABDUL VAHAB, THRUMLATH HOUSE, COCHIN UNIVERSITY POST, KOCHI-22. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R4 SRI.P.A.MOHAMMED ASHROF FOR R4 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R4 SRI.C.A.CHACKO FOR R5 SRI.A.NANDAKUMAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.2217 OF 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of February 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. Appellant is the insurer of one of the two vehicles involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on June 22, 2010. The vehicle insured by the appellant (lorry bearing Regn.No.KL-2/3069) was owned by respondent No.2 herein. The other vehicle bearing Regn.No.KL-6/1530 was owned by respondent No.3 in this appeal and it was allegedly got insured with respondent No.4. The injured in the accident, who is respondent No.1 herein, claimed compensation from the owners, drivers and insurance companies of the two vehicles. 2. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- towards compensation to claimant and directed respondent No.3 herein, namely, the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-6/1530 to pay the same, since it was found by the Tribunal that the victim was travelling in the goods vehicle in question as a gratuitous passenger and therefore the insurer of the said vehicle was not liable to indemnify the owner. In other words, both insurance companies were exonerated from the liability to pay compensation. 3. However, it is on record that the appellant who was the insurer of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-23069 had deposited a sum of Rs.30,250/- M.A.C.A.No.2217 OF 2006 :: 2 :: in satisfaction of the interim award passed by the Tribunal during the pendency of the claim petition. But while disposing of the claim petition, the Tribunal did not issue a direction to respondent No.3 herein either to reimburse the amount under the interim award to the appellant or to deposit the same before the Tribunal to be paid to the appellant/insurance company. As has been noticed already, the Tribunal found that respondent No.3 is solely responsible to pay the entire compensation to the claimant. 4. In this context, it may also be noticed that the claimant had sought enhancement of compensation awarded to him before this court in MACA 1242/06. A Division Bench of this court by judgment dated August 13, 2009 awarded a further sum of Rs.34,560/- as additional compensation. In the above judgment, this court had further affirmed the finding entered by the Tribunal that respondent No.3 in this appeal, the owner of the vehicle bearing Reg.No.KL-6/1530 was solely responsible to pay the compensation. 5. Though notice has been served in the delay petition, respondent No.3 has not entered appearance either in person or through counsel. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, respondent No.3 has not challenged the award passed by the Tribunal mulcting him with the liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Since appellant/insurance company has M.A.C.A.No.2217 OF 2006 :: 3 :: been absolved from the liability to pay compensation, it necessarily follows that the amount deposited by the appellant will have to be reimbursed to it. There is considerable force and justification in the contention raised by the appellant that it has to be given liberty to recover the amount from respondent No.3. 6. In any view of the matter, the right of the appellant to recover the amount deposited by it cannot be denied. It is therefore held that the appellant shall be at liberty to recover the sum of Rs.30,250/- deposited by it as directed by the Tribunal in the interim award from respondent No.3. Ordered accordingly. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes/sv