IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2008 / 24TH POUSHA 1929 MACA.No. 1173 of 2005(G) -------------------------------------- OPMV.480/1994 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KALPETTA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 OP(MV) ------------------------------------------------------------ 1. K.V.PAULOSE, KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, KAYYOONNI P.O., NILGIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-643 205. 2. K.P.SHAJI, KOTTAPPURATH HOUSE, KAYYUNNI P.O., NILIRI DISTRICT, TAMIL NADU, PIN-643 205. BY ADV. SRI.K.BABU THOMAS RESPONDENTS - 3RD RESPONDENT - CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., D.B.ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE, PIN-641 002. 2. SRI.P.BEERAN,, TINTU NIVAS, VADUVANCHAL P.O., WAYANAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO.1173 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Heard. Admitted. Advocate Shri P.R.R.Menon takes notice for the first respondent. Notice to second respondent dispensed with. Appeal itself is disposed of. 2. The owner and driver of the vehicle bearing Reg. No.TN-43/3973 involved in the accident are the appellants. The only ground raised in this appeal is that the Tribunal went wrong in exonerating the Insurer from indemnifying the first appellant. 3. Second respondent, petitioner in O.P(MV) No.480 of 1994 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Waynad, sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. He filed the petition claiming compensation. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and the petitioner was entitled to get compensation. The first appellant, who was the owner of the vehicle, was directed to pay the compensation on the ground that he did not produce copy of the insurance policy. Insurer M.A.C.A. NO. 1173 OF 2005 -: 2 :- also contended that no valid policy of insurance was produced. In fact the first appellant had produced the copy of the policy before the Tribunal. According to the first appellant he had produced the copy of the policy before the Tribunal on 15.7.1996. Since the Tribunal ignored the copy of the policy and fastened the liability on the him, he had filed a petition to review the award. That petition was also dismissed. The copy of the policy of insurance issued by the third respondent shows that there was a valid policy issued for the period from 1.11.1993 to 31.10.1994. So I am of the view that the award passed by the Tribunal is to be interfered with to the limited extent of directing the Insurer to pay the compensation awarded. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The direction of the Tribunal that first appellant owner is liable to pay the compensation awarded is modified. The third respondent Insurer in the O.P. is is directed to deposit in the Tribunal for payment to the petitioner the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- TH JANUARY, 2008