IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH AUGUST 2008 / 16TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 1274 of 2006(B) --------------------------------- ------------------------------- OPMV.2566/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR ........................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MALIAKKAL BUILDING, IRINJALAKKUDA, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KRO ANNEXE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VELLUTHAKKI, W/O. CHATHUKUTTY, CHERUVATHOOR HOUSE, KOORKKANCHERY, THRISSUR. 2. VINOD P.B., PAZHAMANA HOUSE, P.O. URAKAM, THRISSUR. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1274 OF 2006 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 7th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)2566/01. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.21,600/- with 7% interest and the insurance company is directed to deposit the amount. 2. Learned counsel for the insurance company had invited my attention to paragraph 4 of the award which clearly indicates that there is a specific contention that the first respondent in the claim petition was not having a valid badge for driving a transport vehicle and thereby he has violated the policy conditions. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has not framed any issues and had also not considered the point at all in this way. It is a matter that requires consideration. But the claimant being a third party the insurance company is bound to pay the amount and the only M.A.C.A. 1274 OF 2006 -:2:- question that may raise for determination is regarding reimbursement which the insurance company is entitled to from the owner. So the matter requires reconsideration on that point. Therefore the MACA is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for framing a proper issue on the question whether the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner on account of the contention that there is no valid badge for driving the vehicle. Since the owner has not appeared before this Court in spite of notice, the insurance company is directed to take out fresh notice after it appears before the Tribunal so that the owner can also be heard in the matter. The insurance company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.9.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-