IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2009 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 242 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.102/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER,THIRD PARTY CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS,KOCHI-16. BY ADV. MR.M.A.GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. GOPAN,S/O.APPU, RESIDING AT THUNDATHIL HOUSE, CMC WARD 15,CHERTHALA. 2. INDU,S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, INDULEKHA HOUSE,MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYAT, MANNANCHERRY. 3. SUNIL KUMAR, PANCHAYAT HOUSE,MUTTATHIPARAMBU P.O., CHERTHALA. R1 BY ADV. MR.C.A.CHACKO R2 BY ADV. MR.P.VIJAYARAGHAVAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.444/2005 IN MACA NO.242/2005 CLOSED 9/12/2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.242 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 9th day of December, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in OP(MV)No.102/1999. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.15,000/=. The Tribunal directed the insurance company to pay the amount. 2. The insurance company has challenged the said decision on the ground that no order is given for reimbursement for the reason that there was no valid driving licence for the rider of the scooter which amounts to fundamental breach of the policy conditions. It has been brought to the notice of the court that the owner of the vehicle is no more. Even as per the affidavit filed by the insurance company it can be seen that the owner died as early as on 30.4.2001. The case is disposed of by the Tribunal only on 28.5.2004. So, an award is passed against a dead person. So far as the insurance company is concerned, its liability is to indemnify the owner. So unless there is a valid award : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.242 OF 2005 against the owner, the insurance company cannot be directed to satisfy the same. 3. Therefore, the award is really not in accordance with law and therefore, it requires interference. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside in toto and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the claimant who has appeared before this Court to implead the legal representatives of the deceased owner and thereafter the parties be permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with aw. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14.01.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.242 OF 2005