IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1608 of 2008() ---------------------------- OPMV.2515/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ..................................................................................................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- ASWIN, AGED (4 YEARS - MINOR) REP. BY GUARDIAN AND FATHER M. AJITHKUMAR, MENIYIL HOUSE, S/O.UNNEERI, SHOBHA NIVAS, ASHINJILAM AMSOM PUTHUKODU DESOM, ERNAD TALUK. BY ADV. SMT.LATHA PRABHAKARAN SRI. K.M.JAMALUDHEEN RESPONDENT(S): ------------------ 1. V.S. MUHAMMED SADIQUE, S/O.KUNHIKOYA, HOUSE NO. 16/182, V.S. HOUSE, KUTTICHIRA, KOZHIKODE. 2. KOLLERI RAMADASAN, S/O. VASU, SALESMAN, FAIMAS KARI POWDER, PUTHUKODE. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, KORAMABAYIL ARCADE, PANDIKKAD ROAD, MANJERI, KOZHIKODE. ADV. SRI.K.M.FIROZ FOR R1 SRI.LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 1608 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikkode in O.P.(M.V) No.2515 of 2001. The claimant a minor boy aged 7 years is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident. He had sustained fracture both bones of the left leg. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.3,500/- and it is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. Heard the counsel for appellant Insurance Company and the owner. After going the hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties feel that the matter requires a reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal both on the question of accident as well as on the quantum of compensation. Unfortunately the owner and driver did not co-operate in the trial and the Insurance Company denied the involvement of the vehicle in the accident. Unfortunately the Tribunal took the view that R1 and R2 are not contesting and therefore they are liable for the compensation and exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. In a case of this nature the owner is vicariously liable for the act of the driver and the Insurance Company is bound indemnify the M.A.C.A. NO. 1608 OF 2008 2 owner on the terms of the policy. So if the accident is affixed on the owner then legally it may not be correct to exonerate the Insurance Company from the liability if there is a policy. But I find in this case the charge sheet is not been produced and evidence has not been adduced properly. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration. Similarly, if there is an accident and the injury noted are of a serious nature namely fracture both bones of leg the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted take back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the owner to file written statement and the Insurance Company to file an additional written statement and also permit the claimant as well as Insurance Company to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of his respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. They are directed to appear before the Court below on 16.11.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm M.A.C.A. NO. 1608 OF 2008 3 M.A.C.A. NO. 1608 OF 2008 4