IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 13TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 22ND BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 2946 of 2009(C) ------------------------------ OPMV.1/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANT(S)/PETITIONER: --------------------------------- JUMAIL, AGED 9 YEARS, S/O. JAMEELA, KOORIMANNIL HOUSE, CHETTAPPALAM POST, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST, (PETITIONER BEING MINOR REP BY NEXT FIREND AND MOTHER, NAMEELA, AGED 33 YEARS, W/O. MOYIN, KOORIMANNILHOUSE, POST CHETTAPPALAM, MANANTHAVADY TALUK, WAYANAD DIST. BY ADV. SRI.N.J.ANTONY RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. WILSON, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ITTANPILLAI ANICHOTTIL HOUSE, PAYYAMPALLY POST, M MANANTHAVADY, WAYANAD DIST. 2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., M.G.T. BUILDING, KALPETTA, ADV. SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2946 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)1/05. The claimant, an injured has been awarded a compensation of Rs.7,200/- and the insurance company has been exonerated from the liability. Dissatisfied with the same the quantum as well as exclusion of the insurance company from the liability, the claimant has come up in appeal. I am afraid the Tribunal has really not understood the contentions of the parties and therefore the matter requires reconsideration at its hands. 2. Admittedly the accident had taken place on 29.3.04. The insurance company has contended that the vehicle was insured at the time of the accident with the insurance company. But it had raised a contention that the driver had no badge to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident. M.A.C.A. 2946 OF 2009 -:2:- 3. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the award would reveal that there was a valid policy for the vehicle from 4.6.03 to 3.4.04. Unfortunately the Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from the liability stating that the insurance company has denied the insurance and so R2 is exonerated from the liability. It is absolutely wrong. The contention raised by the insurance company is to the effect that the driver did not have a valid badge at the time of the accident and so there is a breach of policy conditions which enables the insurance company at least to get a recovery right from the owner. But unfortunately the Tribunal has failed to understand the same. So the matter requires reconsideration. Since the matter requires reconsideration the question of adequacy of compensation also can be looked into by the Tribunal by permitting the parties to adduce evidence. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective M.A.C.A. 2946 OF 2009 -:3:- contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the owner cum driver has not appeared before this Court fresh notice be again taken before the Tribunal and all the parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.10.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-