IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 30TH MAY 2008 / 9TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 468 of 2003(F) ---------------------- OPMV.636/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT: -------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALA REP.BY THE DY.MANAGER,KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE ANNEXE AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ----------------- 1. GEORGE AUGUSTHY @ JOSE, PATHIRIYIL HOUSE, KAVUMKANDAM, KADANADU, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. * 2. MONY, KOCHUPARAMBIL, KOLLAPPALLY P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. (THE NAME OF R2 IS DELETED FROM THE PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE APPELLANT AS PER ORDER DT. 1.2.2008 IN I.A.243/2008) 3. T.A.MOHAMMED SAFRULLA, THAKIDIYIL, KODIMATTUKUNNU, THRIKODITHANAM, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.NOUSHAD THOTTATHIL FOR R3 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/05/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.468 of 2003 ------------------------------- Dated this the 30th May, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, in O.P.(MV) No.636/1996. The only point that arise for determination in the appeal is whether the Tribunal went wrong in giving a direction to the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company, to deposit the amount and get it reimbursed from respondents 1 and 2. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant in the case was travelling in a lorry which met with an accident. The Tribunal found that he was a person accompanying the goods, but held that since the accident had taken place prior to coming into force of the amended Act, with effect from 14.11.1994, there is no liability for the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner. The Apex Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Asha Rani (2003 (1) KLT 165 (SC) held that under the Act which stood prior to the amendment, with effect from 14.11.1994, there was no statutory obligation on the part of the owner of the vehicle to safeguard the interest of the owner of the goods or the representative of the goods of the owner MFA.No.468/2003 2 accompanying the vehicle. The Court also held that they cannot be classified as a third party, and 'any person' will not take in that position. As rightly found by the Tribunal, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation. When it is so, whether it was proper on the part of the Tribunal to direct the Insurance Company to pay the amount, and then to realise it from respondents 1 and 2. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004 (1) KLT 781), there is an observation that when it is relating to a third party, there can be a direction to the Insurance company to pay the amount and get it back from the owner and driver. But so far as this case is concerned, the injured is not a third party and the Insurance policy does not cover the risk of that person at all, and, therefore, the Insurance Company is totally exonerated from the liability. In such circumstances, the Tribunal cannot without assigning any reason direct the Insurance Company to pay the amount and later to realise it from respondents 1 and 2. Therefore, the said direction passed by the Tribunal requires interference, and it is set aside. However, it is made clear that the claimant is only entitled to realise the amount from respondents 1 and 2, jointly and severally. The amount deposited by MFA.No.468/2003 3 the Insurance Company, for the purpose of preferring this appeal, shall be returned to them, on proper application. Appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE nj. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- M.F.A.No.468 of 2003 J U D G M E N T Dated:30th May, 2008. -------------------------------