IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 9TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 18TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 1547 of 2010() ---------------------------------- OPMV.1269/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD, NENMARA,PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. S.MANIKANDAN,S/O.SHANMUGHAN,DRIVER, RAKKAN KALAM,ANJUMOORTHY,MANGALAM,ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. VINOJ.K.V,S/O.VENU,KUNNINGAL HOUSE, MAVELI NAGAR,KURIACHIRA,THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. TOM JOSEPH,S/O.JOSEPH,PALAKKAL HOUSE, MANGALAM DAM,ALATHUR TALUK,PALAKKAD DISTRICT. R1 BY SRI.P.SANTHALINGAM, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.S.SHARAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1547 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in OP(MV)No.1269/2001. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.39,379/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Aggrieved by the said decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. After hearing the learned counsel for the insurance company, I feel that there is some justification in the mistake that had crept in with respect to the conduct of the insurance company in this case. It can be seen that the vehicle involved in the accident was formerly registered as DL-55/A-8006 and insured in the name of Sri. P.J. Mathew. It was an act only policy. The period of the policy was from 11.8.1999 to 10.8.2000. 3. It is submitted by the insurance company that the vehicle was transferred in favour of the third respondent in : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1547 OF 2010 the appeal on 24.1.2000. In the claim petition itself number of the policy was given and the insurance company when perused the policy, found a total different registration number that is the old number before changing it into the Kerala registration and it was also seen issued in the name of one Mathew, who is not a party before this Court. Therefore the insurance company was unable to produce these materials before the court. It can be only a bonafide mistake for the reason that the vehicle number has been changed only after the transfer and involvement of the vehicle shown in the petition as KL.9.G.7341. Therefore it appears that the matter has to be further considered by the Tribunal for the reason that the copy of the policy produced as Annexure-A1 before this Court is only an act only policy. The Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority by a circular dated 16.11.2009 only deals with the policies which are standard motor package policies. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. 4. So, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1547 OF 2010 insurance company to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 21.12.2010. If the claimant and the owner does not appear on that day, let the insurance company to take out notice to them for the reason that their junction is absolutely necessary for the disposal of the case. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1547 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T