IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS MONDAY, THE 20TH DECEMBER 2010 / 29TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1002 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.1400/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED MANJERI NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THIRD PART CLAIMS CELL, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- 1. NADICHI, W/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, CHERAKKAD HOUSE, KANNAMANGALAM P.O. 2. BHASKARAN, S/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO 3. THANKA, D/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 4. RAJU, S/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 5. PREMA, D/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 6. PADMAVATHY, D/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 7. RADHA, D/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 8. MINI, D/O. LATE NEELAKANDAN, DO. DO. 9. K.M. MAMMED, S/O. BEERAN UNNI, KIZHISSERI MADERI HOUSE, PUTHUR PALLIKKAL, THENHIPALAM. ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN FOR R1 TO 8 SRI.P.BABU KARTHIKEYAN. FOR R1 TO R8 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/12/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1003 OF 2004 CO NO. 18 OF 2005 & CO NO. 25 OF 2005, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER,J & M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS, J ------------------------------------------------------------------- MACA.No.1002/2004 & Cross Objection 18/2005 & MACA.No. 1003/2004 & Cross Objection 25/2005 -------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 20th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT These two appeals and Cross Objections are directed against a common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in two claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of two deceased victims in a road traffic accident that occurred on December 30 1998. 2. It is on record that the lorry in which the two deceased and some others were travelling dashed against another lorry which was stationary. The claim petitions filed by the legal representatives of the deceased and other injured victims were resisted by the appellant Insurance Company contending that the deceased and injured being the gratuitous passengers, the company could not be held liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The above contention was overruled by the Tribunal and Company was directed to pay compensation to the claimants. 3. It appears that against the award passed by another Tribunal at Tirur in a claim petition filed by another victim of the MACA.No.1002/2004 & Cross Objection 18/2005 & MACA.No. 1003/2004 & Cross Objection 25/2005 2 same accident, the appellant Insurance Company had preferred MACA No.953/2006. The said appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court by judgment dated 29-08-2008. While dismissing the appeal the Division Bench had referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Satpal Singh (2000 (1) SCC 237) and also in New India Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Asha Rani and Others (2003 2 SCC 223), apart from the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Baljit Kaur and others (2004) AIR SC 1340) and Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Nanjappa and others (2004 AIR 952). This Court held that going by the ratio in the above decisions, it would be appropriate if appellant Insurance Company is given liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the Insured/owner of the vehicle after making payment to the claimants. Since such a view has already been taken by another Bench of this Court,we respectfully follow the above view and dispose of these appeals directing the appellant to pay the compensation awarded to the claimants as directed by the Tribunal and recover the same from the Insured/owner. MACA.No.1002/2004 & Cross Objection 18/2005 & MACA.No. 1003/2004 & Cross Objection 25/2005 3 Cross Objection No.18/2005 in MACA.No.1002 of 2004 & Cross Objection No.25/2005 in MACA.No.1003/2004: We have carefully perused the award passed by the Tribunal. In our view the Tribunal has considered the entire aspects of the matter in their proper perspective. There is no room for enhancement of compensation under any of the heads. Therefore, the cross objections are dismissed. A.K.BASHEER,JUDGE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS,JUDGE pm