IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2008 / 31ST ASHADHA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1415 of 2008(A) ----------------------- OP(MV).3212/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------ B.VIJAYAN, AGED 56 YEARS, SON OF SRI.BHASKARAN PILLA, ORIGINALLY RESIDING AT 4/61, ARISTO ROAD, CHELAKKOTTUKARA, THRISSUR AND NOW AT ASWIN, KAIRALI NAGAR, PUTHENVETTUVAZHI, EAST FORT P.O, TRICHUR-5. BY ADV. SRI.ANIL S.RAJ SMT.K.N.RAJANI SMT.ANILA PETER RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4: ---------------------------------------------- 1. P.K.VISWAMBHARAN, S/O.KUNJAKKAN, PULLATT HOUSE, P.O.KAZHIMBRAM, EDAMUTTAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680 568. 2. BINEESH, S/O.SEKHARAN, CHEMBAKASSERY HOUSE, EDATHIRUTHY VILLAGE, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, BRANCH OFFICE, ALENGADAN BUILDING, TANA, IRINJALAKUDA. 4. V.V.SUNIL, VATTAPULLY HOUSE, P.O. EDATHIRUTHY, KATTUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1415/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1661 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A NO.1415 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- 22/07/2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1415 OF 2008 --------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, in OP(MV) 3212/01. The Tribunal on finding that the 2nd respondent is not having a valid driving licence, directed respondents 1 and 2 to pay the amount jointly and severally. It is against that decision, the 1st respondent in the claim petition has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that by virtue of an agreement, which is produced as Ext.B1, the vehicle has been transferred to the additional 4th respondent . By virtue of Ext.B2, the additional 4th respondent has taken delivery of the vehicle on a kychit. Therefore, it is contended that 1st respondent has nothing to do with the vehicle on the date of the accident. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has totally ignored that contention and merely on the finding that there is no driving licence held respondents 1 and 2 jointly and severally liable for the same. So the approach of the Tribunal is erroneous and it has proceeded to decide the matter without even framing proper issues. Since the Insurance Company has been exonerated from the liability there was a duty cast upon the Tribunal in the light of the contention raised by the 1st respondent to decide as to who was the owner of the vehicle. There is no point in MACA No.1415/08 2 issuing notice to all from this this court and then remand the case. Therefore, I feel that even without the appearance of the parties, since the matter has not been properly dealt with by the Tribunal, it can be sent back and notice can be taken to all of them at the expense of the appellant from the Tribunal, so that all can be heard and the matter can be disposed of. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as to whether the 1st respondent in the claim petition is liable to pay the amount and whether he is the owner or the 4th respondent is the owner of the vehicle. After affording equal opportunity to all, the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter. Since I am disposing of the appeal at the admission stage itself, I direct the appellant to take out notice to all concerned after his appearance before the Tribunal. Appellant herein is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.1415/08 3