IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 26TH AUGUST 2008 / 4TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 1633 of 2007(C) -------------------------------- OPMV.731/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PATHANAMTHITTA .................... APPELLANT/SECOND RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------- BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT AND R1: ----------------------------------------- 1. S. SURESHKUMAR, S/O. SADASIVAN NAIR, CHENGANGATTU VEEDU, OMALLOOR VILLAGE AND POST. 2. JOSE P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, EETTIVILAYIL VEEDU, VAYALA POST, ADOOR. BY ADV. SRI.JACOB P.ALEX FOR R.1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1633 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in O.P.(MV) 731/97. It is an application filed u/s 166 of the M.V.Act for the damages caused to the vehicle. The claimant is the owner of the vehicle which was driven by a mechanic, which met with an accident and damages were sustained to the vehicle. A petition u/s 166 is filed before the Tribunal claiming damages to the vehicle. I am told that the vehicle is covered by a comprehensive policy or in other words there is own party coverage for the damages sustained to the vehicle. When it is so in some forum this claim may be maintainable. But so far the Claims Tribunal is concerned it can only deal with cases of damages relating to third party. It has been iterated and reiterated by the decisions of the Courts that the owner of the vehicle is not a third party and therefore the claim petition is not maintainable u/s 165 of M.A.C.A. 1633 OF 2007 -:2:- the M.V.Act. Therefore the petition is not entertainable. But I make it clear that the respondent can pursue his remedy for getting his damages from the appropriate forum and he is permitted to move such forum or authority as the case may be within a period of two months from today. If in case of delay, let that delay be considered sympathetically for the reason that the matter has been prosecuted in a wrong forum. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-