IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 26.9.2008 CORAM:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice R. SUDHAKAR C.M.A.No.21 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2008 The National Insurance Company Ltd., Uluthukadu, Thiruvanathapuram. .. Appellant/ 3rd Respondent Vs. 1. Nagalakshmi 2. Minor Kaleeswaran (Minor rep. by mother & next friend first respondent) 3. C. Gopalakrishnan 4. The Managing Director, Kerala State Road Transport Corporation, Thiruvananthapuram. .. Respondents/Petitioners/ Respondents 1 & 2 Appeal filed under Section 173 of M.V. Act against the award and decree dated 13.7.2006 in MCOP No. 165 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Udumalpet. For Appellant : Mr. N. Vijayaraghavan For Respondents : Mr. Thangapandian for M/s. N. Umapathy - R1 – R2 R3 – exparte No Appearance – R4 JUDGMENT https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ The Insurance Company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 13.7.2006 in MCOP No. 165 of 2003 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Court), Udumalpet. 2. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is on the liability to compensate the claimant. The finding of negligence on the part of the driver of the bus belonging to the 4th respondent is not disputed. The liability has been fixed on the appellant insurance company, who is the third respondent before the Tribunal stating that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured with the appellant insurance company. The Tribunal proceeded to hold that the appellant insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants viz., wife and minor child of the deceased Jeyaraman. The quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal is also not in dispute. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that on the date of the accident, the policy issued by the appellant insurance company in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident had expired. Though such a plea was taken by the appellant before the Tribunal, no evidence was let in to substantiate the said plea. In such view of the matter, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the policy was in force and the liability was fixed on the insurance company. 4. In the present appeal, this Court is not inclined to go into the issue as to whether the appellant is liable or the 4th respondent is liable to compensate the claimant. It is a matter to be decided on the basis of the oral and documentary evidence let in before the Tribunal. In the present appeal, the appellants are not able to show that the policy was not in force at the relevant time. There is no material to hold that the appellant insurance company liability should be absolved. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal stands confirmed. 5. In the result, the civil miscellaneous appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, M.P.No. 1 of 2008 is also dismissed. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6. It is open to the appellant to pursue their remedy for recovery as against the 4th respondent if entitled, in accordance with law. Sd/ Asst.Registrar /true copy/ Sub Asst.Registrar ra To The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, (Subordinate Court), Udumalpet. 1 CC To Mr.N. Umapathy, Advocate, SR NO.55228 1 CC To Mr.N. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate, SR NO.55222 CMA No. 21 of 2008 ssv(co) pmk/14.11.2008. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/