IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 5TH JANUARY 2009 / 15TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1245 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.501/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.3; ------------------------------ THE BRANCH MANAGER, M/S.NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., SOUTH BAZAR, P.O.PAYYANNUR, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD. REGIONAL OFFICE, KANDAMKULATHI BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI. BY ADV. SRI.S.MAMMU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS NO.1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------------------- 1. PUTHIYA PURAYIL GOVINDAN, S/O.KUNHIKKANNAN, AGED 57 YEARS, CHERUTHAZHAM, P.O.MANDUR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. THAZHEKURUNTHIL UDAYAKUMAR, S/O.BHARATHAN, 27 YEARS, KANICHIRA, THAIKADAPPURAM P.O., NEELESWARAM VIA., KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 3. N.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O.K.K.KARTHYAAYANI, CHERUTHAZHAM, P.O.MANDUR, PAZHAYANGADI, KANNUR DT. ADV. SRI.GRASHIOUS KURIAKOSE FOR R1 SRI.M.M.ANTO FOR R1 SRI.M.SASINDRAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1245 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV) No.501/2001. The claim is one for damages and the tribunal granted compensation of Rs. 28,500/- and directed the 3rd respondent to pay the amount. A perusal of para 8 of the award would reveal that the 3rd respondent has filed an additional written statement raising the contention that there was no valid driving licence for the driver and therefore it amounts to breach of policy conditions and so it is entitled to get reimbursement. But at the time of passing the award the tribunal did not consider Exts. B1 and B2 on the ground that the additional written statement has been filed without a petition. I think the said approach is erroneous. It requires consideration. After permitting the parties to proceed with the trial and marking of Exts. B1 and B2 at the last stage, it is not proper to discard that contention on the ground that no application is filed to receive the additional written statement. The court should have directed the Company to file such application to receive additional written statement. Therefore M.A.C.A.No. 1245/2008 -2- in order to decide the inter se dispute between the owner and the Insurance Company the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award is set aside to that extent and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration by permitting the Insurance Company if insisted by the tribunal to file an application for acceptance of additional written statement and permit all the parties to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The Insurance Company is directed to take out notice to the owner after its appearance before the tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 16.2.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm