IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 24TH JULY 2008 / 2ND SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 716 of 2004() ---------------------- APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT. ---------------------- MOOKKAMMEL KUNHALAN @ M.K.CHEROOR, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.MOKKAMMEL MOIDEEN KUTTY, R/O.HILL VIEW, KUNNAMANGALAM, ACHANAMBALAM, VIA VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER & IST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS. -------------------------- 1. ABDUL MUJEEB,(MINOR) REP. BY THE GUARDIAN/MOTHER, KUNHAYISHA, W/O.MOHAMMED PADIKKATHODI KAPPIL HOUSE, CHEROOR 676 314. MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. MOOAKKAMMEL MOHAMMED BASHEER, S/O.MOOKAMMEL KUNHALAN @ M.K. CHEROOR, DRIVER OF JEEP 10/D-3114, KUNNAMANGALAM, R/O.HILL VIEW, KUNNAMANGALAM, ACHANAMBALAM, VIA VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MALAPPURAM, (ISSUED FROM BOMBAY -C NO.682 067, PERIOD 22-9-1995 TO 21-9-96) ADV. SRI.BABU S. NAIR FOR R1 SRI.M.RAGAGOPALAN - R3 SRI.RAJITH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO.716/2004 ORDER ON IA. NO.1703/2004 IN MACA. NO.716/2004 DISMISSED 24.07.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 716 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV)1/97. The Tribunal passed an award for Rs.20,050/- and directed the respondents in the claim petition namely 1 and 2 to pay the compensation and exonerated the insurance company from the liability on the ground that it was not proved that there was a valid coverage. It is against that decision the owner, the 2nd respondent in the claim petition has come up in appeal. The learned counsel for the appellant very strongly contends before me that he did not receive any notice from the Tribunal and further he was employed at Mumbai and he had taken a policy for the vehicle and there was a valid coverage during the period 22.9.95 to 21.9.96. According to him as the accident had taken place on 7.7.96 there is a policy coverage and therefore the insurance company is bound to indemnify the owner. In ground No.(C) the appellant has M.A.C.A. 716 OF 2004 -:2:- given the cover note number, the vehicle number and the period of validity of the policy. If really there is a policy the insurance company cannot escape the liability but it is the duty of the owner of the vehicle to prove that there was a valid policy. The learned counsel would submit that if an opportunity is given he may be able to establish the same. The insurance company, in the light of the particulars supplied in ground No.(C) can also verify whether a policy was issued as mentioned therein. So the matter requires reconsideration with respect to the liability of the insurance company. Therefore the award under challenge is partly set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the specific purpose of finding whether there was any valid policy for the vehicle on the relevant date of the accident. For the said purpose the appellant is permitted to file a written statement and also produce documents in support of his contentions. Needless to say, the insurance company can also verify and M.A.C.A. 716 OF 2004 -:3:- file additional written statement, if any, for the purpose of deciding the case. All the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1.9.08. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-