IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 626 of 2006() --------------------------------- OPMV.18/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., VADAKARA,REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. VASU, S/O. VELAYUDHAN, RESIDING AT AREEKUNNUMMAL, KURUVANGAD AMSOM, PERUVATTOOR DESOM, KOYILANDY TALUK. 2. KUNHASSAN, S/O. KUNHALAVI, RESIDING AT MANTODI, POOKKOTTARA,MALAPPURAM DIST. 3. SHYJAL T.V., S/O. ABDULLA, RESIDING AT THAZHATHE VEETTARAMBATH HOUSE, P.O. KEEZHARIYOOR, KOYILANDY TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN - R2 SRI.PRAVEEN.H. - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.626 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)No.18 of 1998, whereby the Tribunal has dismissed the claim application. It can be seen from the records available that the Tribunal passed an award in favour of the claimant for a sum of Rs.77,600/- directing the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from respondents 1 and 2. It appears that the 2nd respondent moved an application for setting aside the award which was allowed by the Tribunal and thereafter the impugned order is passed dismissing the application. 2. A perusal of the order would show that it has been dismissed for non-presence of the petitioner. The Tribunal, by its order has created a peculiar circumstance, whereby the claimant has already received the amount and walked away and the insurance company is put into hardship by dismissal of the application whereby the right to recover the amount from the owner also seized to have any effect. When an order is reviewed and MACA 626/2006 -:2:- claim petition is restored, the Tribunal should have directed at least the claimant to deposit the amount if it wants to dismiss the application. Further the presence of the claimant was not at all necessary before the Tribunal for the reason that there is no dispute between the claimant, the owner and the insurance company. The dispute for consideration is between the owner and the insurance company regarding the liability of the insurance company to indemnify the owner. For deciding that question in the Tribunal, the presence of the claimant is not necessary at all. Therefore, the order passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider the question of the inter se liability between the owner and the insurance company after hearing both sides. The insurance company can take out fresh notice to the owner after its appearance so that the matter can be decided finally between the two. The owner and the insurance company are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.8.2008. MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-