IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 22ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 3RD PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 1206 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.1135/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER IN OPMV: ---------------------------------------------------------- SURYAPRAKASHAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, MANIVELI HOUSE, MELADOOR DESOM, ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. BY ADVS. MR.P.V.BABY, MR.A.N.SANTHOSH. RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS IN OPMV: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. RAJAPPAN, S/O.C.R.RAMAN NAIR, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, MELADOOR DESOM, ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. SREEKUMAR, S/O.RAJAPPAN, KANAKKASSERY HOUSE, MELADOOR DESOM, ALATHUR VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., SREEKUMAR BUILDING, CHALAKUDY. R3 BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1206 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)1135/02. The claimant, a pillion rider sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.57,600/- with a direction to respondents 1 and 2 to pay jointly and severally and the insurance company was exonerated from the liability on the ground that the policy is only an Act only policy. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. The two points that had been raised in the appeal are one is regarding the non acceptance of the disability certificate of 13% and secondly regarding the exoneration of the insurance company from the liability. The learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice a copy of the policy relating to the vehicle which shows that it is a comprehensive policy. If it is a comprehensive policy then M.A.C.A. 1206 OF 2009 -:2:- the insurance company may not be able to get exoneration from the liability by virtue of the clarificatory Circular of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority as well as the two Division Bench decisions of this Court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Hydrose (2008 (3) KLT 778) and Mathew v. Shaji Mathew (2009 (3) KLT 813). Therefore it is desirable that the matter is remitted back to be again looked into by the Tribunal and decide that question in accordance with law. So far as the disability certificate is concerned since the matter is going back an opportunity can be given to the claimant to prove disability certificate and then the question of enhancement of compensation can also be considered. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and it is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit both the parties to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.3.2010. The claimant is also directed to M.A.C.A. 1206 OF 2009 -:3:- take out notice to the owner of the vehicle so that the matter can be heard in his presence as well. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-