IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 7TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 16TH BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 758 of 2004(P) ---------------------------------- OPMV.1721/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------- P.K.AYAMMU, S/O. VEERANUNNI, POOVATHIKUNNATH HOUSE, RAILWAY STATION,NILAMBUR. BY ADV. MR.SUNNY MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NOS.1 & 3: ---------------------------- 1. HAMZA P.K., S/O. KUNHIMUHAMMED, PARITHIKUNNAM HOUSE, KARUVANKUZHI, P.O. NALLANTHANNI, NILAMBUR, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. ALI, S/O. ALAVI, THAZHEPARAMBAN HOUSE, KOOTTAMPARA, AMARAMBALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MANJERI. R1 BY ADV. SMT.K.K.PREETHA R2 BY MR.K.H.SAKIR R3 BY MR.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE R3 BY ADV. MR.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.758 OF 2004-G ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of September, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV).No.1721/1992. The claimant, a pedestrian, was hit by a tractor resulting in injuries to him. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,150/= with 12% interest. The second respondent namely, the owner was directed to pay the compensation. The insurance company had denied the coverage of the vehicle and therefore, it was exonerated from the liability. The only point that survives for determination is regarding the liability of the insurance company. Along with the appeal, the owner has produced a copy of the policy by virtue of I.A.No.1766/2004. It is a certificate of insurance issued by the National Insurance Company. The name of the owner is shown as Mr. P.K. Ayammu. Commencement of the policy was 16.7.1991 and expiry was on 15.7.1992. The accident has taken place on 30.1.1992. Therefore if Ext.B1 policy covers, then the insurance company will have the : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.758 OF 2004 liability. 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that it has to be verified and found out and therefore, an opportunity must be given. 3. There is some force in the said contention. I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the insurance company as well as for the owner to prove regarding the existence of a valid policy on the date of the accident. Therefore, the appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration whether there was a valid policy for the vehicle on the date of the accident as alleged by the owner. The Registry is directed to send the copy which is marked as Ext.B1 also to the Tribunal for the purpose of considering the question. The insurance company can also verify and submit. Being a very old matter of 1992, endeavor shall be made to dispose of the matter within three months from the date of appearance of the parties. The parties are directed to : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.758 OF 2004 appear before the Tribunal on 31.10.2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.758 OF 2004