IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1828 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.922/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- PAULOSE, S/O. PAILY, RESIDING AT THAIPARAMBIL HOUSE, PERIYAPPURAM P.O., ONAKKOOR KARA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, CHAKKOOR VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS SRI.N.N.ELAYATH SRI.C.P.MAHESH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------- 1. MANI, S/O. CHACKO, PUNNESSERIL HOUSE, PERIYAPPURAM P.O., ONAKKOOR KARA, ONAKKOOR VILLAGE. 2. GOPALAKRISHNAN T.C., S/O. KUTTAN ACHARY, THOTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, PIRAVOM P.O. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION, TRIPUNITHURA-686 301. BY ADV. SRI.T.C.SURESH MENON FOR R2 SRI.JIBU P THOMAS FOR R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008 ALONG WITH MACA NO.1829/06, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos. 1828 & 1829 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT These appeals are preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) Nos. 922/03 & 912/03 . The Tribunal awarded compensation but restricted the liability to the 1st respondent. These appeals are preferred challenging the quantum of compensation as well as the liability of the Insurance Company. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has made available before me Ext.A8 for perusal. Fortunately for this court, there is appearance for Sri. T.C. Gopalakrishnan, on whose name the policy stood at the time of the accident. The written statement and the additional written statement filed by the Insurance Company are mutually inconsistent. The Insurance Company in the original written statement, as per the extraction of the pleadings, would contend that one Baby was the owner of the vehicle and in the additional written statement they would contend that it was one P.U.Lukose, who was the owner of the vehicle. When I questioned the learned counsel for Gopalakrishnan, it is submitted that at the time of the accident MACA Nos. 1828 & 1829/06 2 Gopalakrishnan was not the owner of the vehicle but it was one Leelama Johny. So there is a total confusion now regarding the ownership of the vehicle at the time of the accident. But one thing that stands clear is that the policy stands in the name of Gopalakrishnan. The definition of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act has got its own ramnification and it includes the registered owner as well the person who is in possession of the vehicle at the time of the accident. If there is a transfer after taking of the policy what will be the impact of section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act also requires consideration. So the first question to be decided is who was the owner of the vehicle at the time of the accident and on whom the liability is to be fixed. So the matter requires reconsideration especially in the light of the fact that Gopalakrishnan has entered appearance before this court. There is also a grievance regarding the fixation of quantum of compensation, which I feel can be considered by the Tribunal for the reason that the matter is going back for consideration. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the consideration of following points: MACA Nos. 1828 & 1829/06 3 (i) The claimant is at liberty to implead the person whom Gopalakrishnan states to be the owner at the time of the accident. (ii) The Tribunal shall decide who was the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of the accident. (iii) The Tribunal shall consider on whom the liability shall be affixed and whether the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner. (iv) the Tribunal shall also reconsider the question of quantum of compensation. 4. Parties are permitted to produce documentary evidence and to adduce oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and, if necessary, to give additional pleadings or amend the pleadings for a proper adjudication of the dispute between the parties. Necessary parties can also be impleaded. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.8.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA Nos. 1828 & 1829/06 4 MACA Nos. 1828 & 1829/06 5 MACA Nos. 1828 & 1829/06 6