IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST OCTOBER 2009 / 9TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 556 of 2009(E) ----------------------------- OPMV.1689/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS MANAGER,3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY;- -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.J.THOMAS,S/O.LATE JOSEPH, MANAMEL HOUSE,MAMMOOD.PO, CHANGANACHERRY. 2. JOEMON THOMAS, S/O.THOMAS,MANAMEL HOUSE, MAMOOD.PO, CHANGANACHERRY. 3. SABY MATHEW,MANAMEL HOUSE, KURISUMMOODU.PO,CHANGANACHERRY. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 556 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Addl. Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) 1689/04. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.42,100/- and made the insurance company liable to pay the amount. It is against that the insurance company has come up in appeal. I find that there are lots of inconsistencies and mistakes in the award. 2. The insurance company to start with contended for the position that the claimant was a pillion rider and the policy does not cover the risk of a pillion rider. Then it filed an additional written statement contending that the claimant was not a pillion rider but the rider himself and to crown all these things when the Tribunal considered the issue it extracted the conditions as if the contention of the insurance company is that the driver did not have a valid driving M.A.C.A. 556 OF 2009 -:2:- licence. Nowhere any discussion is seen made nor any attempt is made to answer the contentions. So equally also the parties have not tried to advert their mind to place the materials before the Tribunal. So I feel so far as the interse liability between the parties are concerned and as there is a contention that the claimant himself is responsible for the accident that also requires a probe. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and the Tribunal is directed to frame appropriate issues and then answer the same after permitting the parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.11.2009. Since the claimant and other respondents have not appeared before this Court I direct the insurance company to take out notice to those persons and the matter be disposed of after hearing them as well. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-