IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1738 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.403/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., P.B. NO. 67, KALLUMKATHARA BUILDING,PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & R1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.K. MATHEW, AGED 52 YEARS, S/O MATHAI, MALAMPARA HOUSE, KANJEETTUKARA MURI, KANJEETTUKARA POST, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT. 2. BIJI MATHEW AGED 22 YEARS, S/O M.M.MATHAI -DO- 3. JIPSY SARA MATHEW, AGED 16 D/B 28.04.1981, D/O M.M.MATHEW (REP. FIRST PETITIONER FATHER AND NATURAL GUARDIAN M.K. MATHEW). 4. BOBY P. ABRAHAM, S/O P.T. ABRAHAM, PODIPPARA HOUSE,KANJEETHUKARA POST, KANJEETTUKARA MURI, AYROOR VILLAGE, RANNY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 5. SAIJU PHILIPOSE, PATHAKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KURIYANNOOR POST, THOTTAPPUZHASSERY VILLAGE, THIRUVALLA TALUK. ADV. SRI.ARUN.B.VARGHESE FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 1738 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.2092/2008 IN MACA NO.1738/2008 DISMISSED 04/12/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1738 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) No.403/2007. One Mariamma Mathew died and her husband and children had moved an application under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation. It is seen that at any rate there is a Personal Accident coverage and so that an amount of Rs. 50,000/- is covered as per the terms of the policy. The question whether it covers a larger amount or what is the impact of the policy etc. are matters that requires consideration by the tribunal at the final stage of the case. So leaving open that contention to be decided and as the P.A. coverage is there for Rs. 50,000/- , I do not want to interfere with the decision rendered by the tribunal regarding preliminary award. The M.A.C.A lacks merit and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm