IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 29TH MARCH 2010 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 240 of 2010() ---------------------- OPMV.2416/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE MANAGING PARTNER, MAYILVAHANAM MOTORS, SHORNUR, PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY C.A.ABRAHAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS ------------------------ 1. C.K.RAHIYANATH, W/O.LATE ABDUL AZEEZ, FRIMS HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KASHAYAPADI, KOZHIKODE. 2. AZEEZ (MINOR) FRIMS HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KASHAYAPADI, KOZHIKODE. 3. SHAHADMILAL (MINOR) FRIMS HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KASHAYAPADI, KOZHIKODE. 4. HIBA AYSHA (MINOR) FRIMS HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KASHAYAPADI, KOZHIKODE. MINORS ARE REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN RAHIYANATH. 5. AHAMMEDKOYA, S/O.HASSAN, FRIMS HOUSE, P.O.FEROKE, KASHAYAPADI, KOZHIKODE. 6. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, JRJ COMPLEX, OTTAPALAM, PALAKKAD. ADV. SRI.AVM.SALAHUDIN FOR R1 TO 5 SRI.T.SHYAM PRASAD FOR R1 TO 5 SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. No. 240 of 2010 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 29th day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is at the instance of the owner of a vehicle involved in a motor accident. The Tribunal held that the appellant was liable to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,90,625/- to the claimants. It is contended by the appellant that the above order is illegal in as much as the Tribunal has overlooked the fact that the vehicle owned by the appellant was validly insured with respondent No.6/Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for respondent No.6 Insurance Company concedes that there was in fact a valid insurance policy in respect of the vehicle involved in the accident. 3. It appears that initially there was some confusion with regard to the correct registration number of the vehicle. But it is revealed from the records that the claimants themselves had filed an application to amend the MACA 240/10 2 claim petition by incorporating the correct number of the vehicle. Any how, the Insurance Company has now admitted that there was valid insurance coverage for the vehicle at the time of the accident. Therefore, there can be no controversy as of now that the Insurance Company is liable to indemnify the appellant. Therefore, in modification of the award passed by the Tribunal, respondent No.6 Insurance Company is directed to pay the compensation to respondents 1 to 5/claimants with interest and costs, as directed in the award. The appeal is allowed to the above extent. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.