IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND JULY 2009 / 31ST ASHADHA 1931 MACA.No. 175 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1409/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO LTD., METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP: NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 & PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- 1. T.M.KHILAB, THOOPIL KOCHANGADY, MARKET P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. PRADEEP, S/O.VASU, VADASSERY HOUSE, P.O.KANDANISSERY, GURUVAYOOR, THRISUR DISTRICT. 3. KHALEEL, S/O.KHALID, AINIKKAL HOUSE, KUNDALIYOOR P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.O.V.MANIPRASAD FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/07/2009,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No. 175 of 2006 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 22nd day of July, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. The appellant, Insurance Company, is the third respondent in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. The allegation raised against the appellant by the claimant was that the offending vehicle was insured with it. 2. The allegation in the petition was that the vehicle, KL 7/R 9018, was driven by the first respondent negligently. The contention of the appellant was that the vehicle involved in the accident was not insured with them, but another vehicle of the first respondent was insured. 3. The Tribunal has ordered the appellant to deposit an amount of Rs.49,250/- with 7% interest till the date of payment. M.A.C.A.No. 175 of 2006 2 In other words, the Tribunal has proceeded on the footing that there is valid insurance policy. 4. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the finding made and the relief granted by the Tribunal was from not appreciating the pleadings of the appellant. He made available the pleadings of the appellant. What was pleaded is that there is no valid insurance policy for the vehicle, KL 7/R 9018 Temp Van, involved in the accident on 31.1.2000. But the policy No.2000/1339 as shown in the petition was issued for another vehicle, KL 5/7254. 5. Therefore, what was contended by the appellant was that there was no insurance policy in respect of Tempo Van KL 7/R 9018. It was contended that the insurance policy has been issued to another vehicle. Ext.B1 is the copy of Insurance Policy dt.23.7.1999. Apparently it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the said policy issued to the first respondent relates to KL 5/7254. M.A.C.A.No. 175 of 2006 3 6. We see force in the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant. There is a total denial of the policy. The appellant had a specific case that the policy issued in favour of the first respondent was in respect of another vehicle, which was not involved in the accident. If that be so, the Tribunal has clearly erred in directing the appellant to pay the amount. 7. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and delete the direction to the appellant to deposit the amount of compensation with 7% interest. However, necessarily respondents 1 and 2 will be liable to satisfy the award. The amount which the appellant has deposited under Section 173 of the Act will be returned to the appellant. (K. M. JOSEPH) Judge (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm