IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 11TH DECEMBER 2008 / 20TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 728 of 2008() --------------------------------- OPMV.1520/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------- DEVADAS,KATTUNKAL HOUSE, WARD NO.IV, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYAT, PUNNAPRA P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.S.SANTHOSH KUMAR SRI.S.VINODKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS -------------------------- 1. SHIHAS, S/O PAREETH, PANDIYALAKKAL PURAYIDATHIL, VELLAKKINAR WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 2. RAJESH, S/O MANIYAN, CHANETHATTIL VEETTIL, WARD NO.XII, PUNNAPRA PANCHAYAT, ALAPPUZHA. 3. M/S NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., ALAPPUZHA BRANCH, ALAPPUZHA. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R3 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 728 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 11th day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)1520/01. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.29,500/-, exonerated the insurance company from the liability and directed the amount to be realised from respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition. It is against that decision the present appeal is preferred by the appellant challenging the exoneration of the liability of the insurance company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had shown me a copy of the policy received from the Tribunal wherein a premium of Rs.133/- is seen collected. Rs.77/- is collected for liability of public risks. So far as Rs.50/- is concerned it is noted accident benefits for spouse and insured as per ENT accident benefit for non-fare passenger or passenger M.A.C.A. 728 OF 2008 -:2:- required. Just below stated that increased third party damage risks S.II-1(ii), the word limit is typed out. There appears to be some confusion on the same and the learned counsel for the insurance company submits that actually extra premium is collected for extended third party property damages and by mistake it has been typed against the other column. It appears to be only a mistake. There is force in that contention but without other particulars it may not be possible for this Court to come to the conclusion for which purpose this Rs.50/- is collected. If Rs.50/- is collected for a non-fare passenger the Company may have the liability and if it is only for an extended third party property damage the Company will not have any liability to cover a pillion rider. So the matter requires reconsideration. Therefore the award so far as it relates to the interse liability is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and both the parties are permitted to produce M.A.C.A. 728 OF 2008 -:3:- and adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 12.1.09. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-