IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 17TH OCTOBER 2008 / 25TH ASWINA 1930 WP(C).No. 7894 of 2006(M) ------------------------- OPMV.765/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... PETITIONER: --------------- C.V. VIJAYACHANDRAN, S/O. CHANDUKUTTY AGED 35 YEARS, CHIRAPADAMMAL HOUSE, P.O. KAPPAD, THILANNUR, KANNUR. BY ADV. SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. P.P. DAVOS, S/O. PAUL, PADUKKADEN HOUSE, MARKET JUNCTION ROAD, IRINGALAKKUDA. (RC OWNER OF THE KBE - 9320 BUS) 2. M/S. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REP. BY ITS DIVISIOANL MANAGER, KANNUR. 3. POTHAN SATHEESAN, S/O. SANKARAN, AZHIKODE AMSOM DESOM, KANNUR. (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE KBE 9320 BUS) ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R2 SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN FOR R1 SRI.P.M.BENZIR FOR R1 SRI.DEEPU LAL MOHAN FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.7894/2006 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.20.1.2003 IN O.P.(MV) NO.765/1998 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.19.2.2000 IN O.P.(MV) NO.782/1998 PASSED IN THE BENCH OF LOK ADALATH, TALIPARAMBA. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.29.8.2005 IN I.A.NO.4165/2003 IN O.P.(MV) NO.765/1998 OF THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY. RESPONDENT'S EXTS: EXT.R1(a): COPY OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DT.14.8.2002 EXECUTED BY SHRI.P.P.DAVIS. EXT.R1(b): COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY NO.570701/97/6304405 DT.22.12.1997 ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., IRINGALAKKUDA. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ---------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.7894 OF 2006 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of October, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ The claimant in O.P.(MV)765/1998 feeling aggrieved by the direction of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalasseri, absolving the 2nd respondent Insurance Company from the liability of making payment of the award amount to the claimant has filed this writ petition. In the said award only the owner and driver were made liable. This was done for the reason that the Insurance Company denied the existence of a policy covering the vehicle involved and the petitioner failed to prove the existence of a policy. The petitioner filed the review application contending that in fact there was a policy and therefore, prayed for review of the award by making the Insurance Company also liable. But, the review petition was dismissed by Ext.P3 order on the ground that the petitioner has failed to prove the existence of the policy. 2. In this writ petition, the 1st respondent has filed a counter affidavit and he has produced a copy of the Insurance Policy as Ext.R1(b). The 2nd respondent admitted before me that W.P.(C) No.7894/2006 2 in fact there was a subsisting valid insurance policy, which could not traced out in time and therefore the same was not produced before the M.A.C.T. 3. In view of the said factual position, the impugned order is vitiated. Accordingly, Ext.P3 is set aside. Normally, I should remit I.A.No.4165/2003 to the M.A.C.T. for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law. In view of the admission of the 2nd respondent that there was a valid policy, it is unnecessary to waste the time of many by making a remand. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed, making the 2nd respondent also liable to pay the amount due under the award in O.P.(MV) No.765/1998. Ext.P1 award is modified accordingly. The 2nd respondent is granted two months time to deposit the amount due under the above said award before the M.A.C.T. If it is not deposited, the claimant can take execution steps. The writ petition is allowed as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) ps