IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 MFA.No. 937 of 2000(C) --------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.951/1995 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR. .................... APPELLANT/ PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- MOHAMMED, S/O. ALIKUTTY, KARAPPAMVEETTIL, KECHERI DESOM, ERANELLOOR VILLAGE, TALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.DILIP J.AKKARA. RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJI MARTIN, AYYANKUZHAKKAL HOUSE, VELLOOR, P.O. MEVELLOOR, VAIKOM TALUK, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. HARIKUMAR, S/O. KARUNAKARAN NAIR, OLIPPURATH HOUSE, MEVELLOOR.P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH 27/XVI, MARKET JUNCTION, THRIPOONITHURA, ERNAKULAM DIST. R3 BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY. THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MFA No.937 OF 2000 ===================== Dated this the 24th day of November 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.951 of 1995. The claim is one for damages sustained to the car in a road accident. It is alleged that the car belonging to the claimant bearing Regn.No.KLG 2467 met with an accident when it collided with KL 5/A 9774 resulting in damages to the car to a tune of Rs.41,062/-. The Tribunal found that there was an accident, but dismissed the claim on the ground that the matter has been settled between the parties. A perusal of the extract of the general diary produced by the police would show that nobody sustained injuries in the accident, but both the vehicles sustained damages.................................................................. ................................................................................................................... ....................................................................... and no further action was necessary in this case. The criminal prosecution was stopped on account of the settlement of the case between the parties and it is very specifically recited in the general diary extract with respect to the damages sustained to MFA 937/2000 -:2:- the vehicle. It is true that the insurance company is not a party to the said contract. But what is the role of an insurance company in such cases can be easily analysed for the reason that the insurance company is only liable to indemnify an owner who is vicariously liable for the act of its driver. When the very owner submits that the matter has been settled then there cannot be any action initiated against that owner. When such an action is prevented against the owner then necessarily the insurance company also cannot be dragged into the picture. The decision of the Tribunal is just and reasonable and therefore I do not find any merit in this appeal. Hence it is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-