IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 11TH OCTOBER 2011 / 19TH ASWINA 1933 MACA.No. 1019 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.299/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT : PETITIONER: ------------------------- G.RAGHAVA KURUP, POMMANKIL VEEDU, PERIMAD, KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.RAJENDRAN RESPONDENTS : RESPONDENTS: --------------------------- 1. CHANDU EARAPPA GANGEL, BIJAPPUR, KARNATAKA.(DELETED) 2. VASANTHA NAYAK, M/S.KONCAN ROCK, UDIPPI.(DELETED) 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, KOLLAM. 4. M.GOPALAKRISHNAN, WEST BANK, KADAPPAKKADA, KOLLAM. (Respondents 1 and 2 are deleted from the array of parties as per order dt.23.09.11) ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R4 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/10/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1019 of 2007 ***************************** Dated this the 11h day of October, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Claimant is the appellant. His claim for compensation was allowed by the Tribunal and respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle, were directed to pay a total amount of Rs.35,500/- as compensation. The 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company was absolved from any liability as it was not proved that on the date of the accident, there was any valid policy of insurance. 2. The appellant claims to be aggrieved by the impugned award. What is his grievance? It is contended that the 3rd respondent/National Insurance Company was unjustifiably absolved from liability. The insurance company has taken up a contention that there was no valid policy coverage on the date of the accident. Respondents 1 and 2, the driver and owner of the vehicle remained exparte. They did not raise a contention that there was any valid policy of insurance. The insurer had contended that there was no valid policy of insurance on the date of the accident. The appellant/claimant did not produce anything M.A.C.A No.1019 of 2007 2 to show that there was any such valid policy of insurance. It was in these circumstances that the Tribunal proceeded to conclude under point number 3 in para.9 that the 3rd respondent/insurer is not liable to pay any compensation to the appellant. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the insurance company had only contended that there was no valid policy of insurance on the date of the accident. From this the counsel builds up an argument that there was valid policy of insurance and the policy of insurance had expired before the date of the accident. The learned counsel for the appellant then proceeds to argue that the burden then is on the 3rd respondent to show that the policy of insurance had expired. We find absolutely no merit in this contention. The insurance company had denied policy coverage. It was certainly for the appellant to establish that there was a valid policy of insurance covering the liability of the owner on the date of the accident. In the total absence of anything to indicate that there was a valid policy of insurance, this contention raised by the appellant cannot succeed. 4. The learned counsel for the appellant next contends that the quantum of compensation awarded is not adequate. M.A.C.A No.1019 of 2007 3 Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver, were deleted from the array of parties on the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant does not want to stake claim for any further relief against respondents 1 and 2 than what was awarded by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the attempt now to contend that the quantum of compensation which respondents 1 and 2 have been directed to pay is inadequate, cannot also be accepted. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant finally prays that the matter may be remanded to the court below. We find absolutely no reason to justify the prayer for remand. The accident took place on 28.08.1994. The claim was filed in 1995 and the impugned award was passed on 30.12.2002. We find nothing which can entitle the appellant to the luxury of an order of remand in these circumstances. 6. This appeal is, in these circumstances, dismissed. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) rtr/