IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 MFA.No. 887 of 1997() --------------------- OPMV.490/1986 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. DOOR XI, MADRAS. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & R1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------ 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O/ K.K. KUMARAN, PRASAD BHAVAN, ROOM NO.21 ROAD 16, WAGLA, THANA - 4. 2. V.S. SAJI, S/O. SANKARAN, VETTATH KUZHUPPILLI HOUSE, P.O. KANDANISSERY, THRISSUR. 3. C.K. SUBRAMANIAN, S/O. KUMARAN CHERUPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOSPITAL ROAD CHAVAKKAD. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A.No. 887 of 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. This appeal is filed by the third respondent in O.P.(MV) No.490 of 1986. The said petition was filed by the first respondent alleging injuries. The appellant was sought to be roped in as the Insurer. The appellant filed a written statement denying insurance coverage. According to the appellant, however, though the Tribunal found that the appellant is not liable as there is no evidence to show that the vehicle is insured, the Tribunal has erroneously passed an award against the appellant also and directed the appellant to deposit the amount with 12% interest and cost. 2. In this case, notice was served by publication, as ordered by this Court. There is no appearance for the respondents. M.F.A.No. 887 of 1997 2 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant Shri. Jayakumar. He re-iterates the stand that no award could be passed against the appellant. There was no evidence to show that the first respondent has any insurance with the appellant. The finding is also on the same line, which we extract below: “According to the third respondent it is not liable for the claim since the vehicle in question was not insured with it as at the time of accident. There is no evidence to show that the vehicle was insured with this respondent as at the time of accident and hence it is not liable for the claim.” 3. In the light of the fact that there is no insurance coverage, certainly it is not open for the Tribunal to pass an award against the appellant. We feel that the appeal is liable to be allowed. 4. Accordingly we allow the appeal and modify the award by deleting the direction in the award making the appellant liable. M.F.A.No. 887 of 1997 3 Consequently the direction to the appellant to deposit the amount will stand vacated. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm