IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 17TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1744 of 2005() ----------------------------------- OPMV.1936/1995 of II ADDL. MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE. .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, SILVER PLAZA BUILDING, INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOZHIKODE, REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. BY ADVS.MR.KKM.SHERIF MR.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------------- 1. BABURAJ, KANKAYIL VEEDIL, S/O.BHARATHAN, CHERUVANNOR AMSOM DESOM, CHERUVANNOR, KOZHIKODE TALUK. 2. M.RAMESH, S/O.GOPALAN, KALYANI NILAYAM, CHELAD, THALASSERY. 3. P.SASIDHARAN, S/O.RAMAKRISHNAN, 29/95, VALACHIL HOUSE, CHERUVANNUR AMSOM, DESOM, KOZHIKODE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1744 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 8th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the IInd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV)No.1936/1995. The Tribunal on a consideration of the materials awarded a compensation of Rs.13,000/= and directed the insurance company to deposit the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. There was another matter OP(MV) No.2280/1995 and an appeal was preferred against that decision as MACA No.1573/2005. This court considered the question regarding the impact of the cancellation of the policy in that case. This Court held that the policy was cancelled only after the accident and therefore the insurance company is liable to pay the amount. It is the same question that is to be considered in this case as well. In the light of the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, the insurance company is bound and liable to pay the amount. A further consideration that they are not liable to : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1744 OF 2005 pay the amount does not arise for consideration. Therefore in the light of the decision in MACA.No.1573/2005, I hold that this appeal is also liable to be dismissed and I do so. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1744 OF 2005