IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 27TH JUNE 2008 / 6TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1052 of 2005() ----------------------------------- OPMV.191/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------- PAILY, S/O. THOMAS, VALANCHERY HOUSE, IMURI P.O., KOOVAPADI VILLAGE, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER, RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ROSA, AGED 60, W/O. PAPPU, NIRAPPEL HOUSE, MALAYATTOOR P.O., MALAYATTOOR VILLAGE. 2. JOSEPH, S/O. PAILY, EDATHALA HOUSE, KARIKODE, OKKAL P.O., CHELAMATTOM VILLAGE. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.N.S.MOHAMMED USMAN - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 27/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.1052 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 27th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)No.191 of 1997. The 2nd respondent is the appellant before this court. The Tribunal found that at the time of the accident, the respondent did not possess a fitness certificate of the vehicle for operating the same. Therefore it directed the insurance company to pay to the claimant and get it reimbursed from respondents 1 and 2. Learned counsel for the appellant made available before me a photocopy of a temporary permit alleged to be issued by the Regional Transport Authority, Ernakulam. It shows that it was current from 17.1.1996 to 16.5.1996. The learned counsel would submit that unless there is a fitness certificate, permit will not be granted to operate the vehicle. There is some force in the said contention. If really there is a valid permit and also fitness certificate then necessarily the insurance company cannot have the right for reimbursement. It is a matter that requires consideration. Therefore for deciding the inter se dispute between the owner and the MACA 1052/2005 -:2:- insurance company, the matter has to be remitted back. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the right for reimbursement. The insurance company as well as the appellant are permitted to adduce evidence both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall decide the question after considering the genuineness of the document as well as other legal position governing the field. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 6.8.2008. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-