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 5TH APRIL 2010 / 15TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1144 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.650/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------------- RAMESH,AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.GANGADHARAN,VALLANKKAD HOUSE, KAVILPAD P.O, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. K.BALASUBRAMANIAN.S/O.PARUKUTTY AMMA, HOUSE NO.8/434,KELATH HOUSE, PO KALLEKULANGARA, AKATHETHARA, PALAKKAD. (RC OWNER OF BUS KLL 5913). 2. SHAMBUKUMAR, S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, AKATHETHARA P.O., MALAMPUZHA ROAD,PALAKKD. (DRIVER OF BUS KLL 5913). 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, MAVOOR ROAD JUCTION, CALICUT-1 (INSURANCE COMPANY OF BUS KLL 5913) (POLICY NO.10160/31/040/11/47602/1999 "A" VALID WITH EFFECT FROM 31-3-2000 TO 30-3-2001). ADV. SRI.P.SANKARANKUTTY NAIR FOR R.3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/04/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.1144 OF 2007 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Basheer, J. This appeal is at the instance of the claimant before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. His claim petition was allowed and a sum of Rs.2,29,500/- was awarded to him as compensation with interest. However, the Tribunal exonerated respondent No.3, Insurance Company, accepting its plea that the vehicle was not covered under any valid policy issued by it and directed respondent Nos.1 and 2, the owner and driver respectively of the vehicle, to pay the compensation to the appellant. 2. The above award is impugned by the appellant contending inter alia that the view taken by the Tribunal is manifestly illegal and unjust in as much as the vehicle was infact covered under a policy issued by respondent No.3 as could be seen from Annexures A1 to A3, which are now being pressed into service by the appellant. M.A.C.A. No.1144/2007 2 3. It appears that the owner of the vehicle had infact taken out a policy and issued a cheque in favour of the Insurance Company. However, according to the learned counsel, the said cheque happened to be dishonoured by the Bank. He invites our attention to Annexure-A3 communication issued by respondent No.3. in this regard, which unambiguously reveals that the above contention carries considerable weight. Any how we do not propose to deal with that aspect of the matter, since in our view this is an issue which has to be decided by the Tribunal after considering the above documents. 4. In this context, learned counsel has invited our attention to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance company Ltd. v. A.B.Sivankutty [2005(4) ILR Kerala 150]. He contends that in such situations the Insurance Company would be liable to indemnify the owner. Yet again we refrain from making any further observation on this aspect. 5. In our view, the issue has to be considered by the Tribunal, after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant M.A.C.A. No.1144/2007 3 and the Insurance Company. However, the appellant has to necessarily pay for his laches. 6. Therefore, the award is set aside and the case is remitted to the Tribunal, on condition the appellant pays a sum of Rs.2,000/- to respondent No.3 as cost. This amount shall be deposited by the appellant before this Court within one month from today, failing which the appeal shall stand dismissed. 7. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 12th May, 2010. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter afresh, after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce further evidence both oral and documentary, if they choose to do so. (A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE) (P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE) ps