IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 16TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 25TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 662 of 2007(B) ------------------------------- OPMV.658/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & RESPT.1,3&4 RESPECTIVELY. ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAMANI, W/O.DECEASED VASU @ VASUDEVAN, AGED. ABOUT 41 YEARS, KULANGARA HOUSE, PUTHENPALLI-VIA, ERINGAPPURAM P.O., GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DIST. 2. SOONA, D/O.DECEASED VASU @ VASUDEVAN, AGED. ABOUT 20 YEARS, - DO - 3. SHAN, S/O.DECEASED VASU @ VASUDEVAN, AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, REP.BY HIS MOTHER RAMANI, - DO - 4. ABDUL KAREEM, MULLATHAYIL HOUSE, PILLAKAD P.O., KOTTAPPADY. 5. KARAPPAN, F/O.THE DECEASED VASU @ VASUDEVAN, KULANGARA HOUSE, PUTHANPALLI VIA, ERINGAPPURAM P.O., GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DIST. 6. KALI, W/O.KARAPPAN, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, M/O.THE DECEASED VASU @ VASUDEVAN, - DO - BY ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN FOR R1 & 2 SRI.P.RAMACHANDRAN FOR R4 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 662 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)658/99. The case arose on account of the death of one Vasu @ Vasudevan in a road traffic accident on 13.4.94. The claim petition has been filed just before the completion of five years. The Tribunal has taken an extreme view which one cannot agree. When compensation is claimed against the insurance company at least it is fundamental for the owner to come and state before the Tribunal whether the vehicle is covered by a policy or not. It is true that insurance company is an instrumentality of the State and it is having thousands of branches all over the country and it may not be possible for any Company or any Governmental institution to trace out whether a particular vehicle is insured in a particular office in any part of the country. This can be precisely done by the owner who has taken the policy. Therefore just because an M.A.C.A. 662 OF 2007 -:2:- insurance company has received a notice just prior to the expiry of five years of the period of accident it is not correct to put the liability on the insurance company to prove the same. At the same time it has also to be stated if there is a feasible and possible method to find out whether there is a policy or not the insurance company shall also co-operate with the Court to find out regarding he existence or non- existence of the policy. If the owner of the vehicle is able to furnish any particulars which will be of any guidance or help to find out the policy, the insurance company can also through its instrumentality find out whether there is a policy or not. Therefore, I feel this is a fit case where an opportunity can be given to the owner as well to submit before the Court regarding the particulars of the policy. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside for the limited purpose of deciding the interse liability between the owner of the vehicle and the insurance company with respect to the liability and both the owner and the insurance company are permitted to produce documentary as well as M.A.C.A. 662 OF 2007 -:3:- oral evidence in support of the contentions regarding the existence or non-existence of the policy. If the claim petitioners are also able to grant any help in finding out they may also do the same so that the matter can be resolved without much difficulty. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-