IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR FRIDAY, THE 10TH JULY 2009 / 19TH ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 132 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.1003/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... PETITIONER:- ---------------- JAI MATHEW, S/O.MATHAI,MANIATTU HOUSE, SOUTH MARADY, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. MR. T.RAJESH RESPONDENTS: ------------------ 1. DENNIS JOHN, S/O.ULAHANNAN,THOTTATHIL HOUSE,KAVUMKARA P.O.VELLORKUNNUAM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. K.I.JOY,S/O.ITTAN, KOCHUKUDY PUTHENPURAYIL HOUSE, MANNATHOOR P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MADAPARAMBIL SHOPPING COMPLEX, MANNATHOOR P.O. MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. MS. RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R3 MR. P.BINNY JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== M.A.C.A. No. 132 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. JUDGMENT The appellant who was the driver - 1st respondent in O.P. (M.V.) No. 1003 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, challenges the award dated 28.06.2008 passed by the M.A.C.T awarding a sum of Rs.20,200/- to the 1st respondent/claimant. The claim was made against the appellant herein who was the driver of the offending vehicle as well as the owner, the 2nd respondent and also against the insurer namely the New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Since the claimant failed to take steps against the registered owner, the Tribunal as per an interim order dated 27.10.2006, dismissed the claim as against the registered owner. The Insurance Company had filed a written statement disputing the claimant's allegation that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the appellant/1st respondent - driver. But, at the stage of M.A.C.A. No. 132/2009 : 2 : the trial, the counsel appearing for the Insurance Company conceded that the accident occurred on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent therein who is the appellant herein. Thereupon, the Tribunal below passed an award against the 1st respondent/appellant. 2. The appellant has also filed I.A. No. 1874 of 2009 challenging the interim order dated 27.10.2006 passed by the Tribunal rejecting the claim as against the owner. The said I.A is allowed. 3. In view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal below to the effect that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the 1st respondent driver, it goes without saying that the 2nd respondent - owner was vicariously liable for the accident. If so, the Insurance Company was bound to indemnify the award particularly when the Insurance Company had conceded before the Tribunal that it was the 1st respondent driver who was responsible for the accident. Under these circumstances, M.A.C.A. No. 132/2009 : 3 : the award passed by the court below so far as it directed the appellant to pay the award amount is set aside. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company shall be bound to pay the award amount. This appeal is allowed as indicated above. The 3rd respondent - Insurance Company shall deposit the award amount before the Tribunal within two months from today. Dated this the 10th day of July, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv M.A.C.A. No. 132/2009 : 4 :