IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 8TH JULY 2008 / 17TH ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1808 of 2005() ---------------------------------- OPMV.208/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, NEYYATTINKARA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANILKUMAR, S/O.VELAYUDHAN NAIR, RADHA SREE, KUNNANVILA, CHENKAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. AJAYAKUMAR.K.R., S/O.KESAVAN NAIR, BHAGAVATHY VILASOM, CHENKAL, KUNNANVILA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.BLAZE K.JOSE - R1 AND R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A. NO.3250/2005 IN MACA. NO.1808/2005 DISMISSED 08/07/2008. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE // TRUE COPY // Rs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1808 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of July, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)208/02. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.14,250/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. A perusal of the award would reveal that it is the case of the claimant that while he was riding as a pillion rider in a motor bike KL/01Q/4450 on account of the negligence of the rider of the bike he sustained injuries in a road accident. The first respondent in the claim petition did not contest the case. The 2nd respondent, insurance company contended that the claimant was not a pillion rider and he himself was riding the motor cycle without a valid licence. It is also contended that the vehicle was validly insured in the name of claimant himself. So he was the owner cum driver of the bike and therefore the insurance company cannot be saddled with any liability. M.A.C.A. 1808 OF 2005 -:2:- 2. The law was set in motion only when a private complaint was filed under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. A perusal of the award of the Tribunal would show that there has been some doubt in the mind of the Tribunal about the genuineness of the case. In paragraph 7, the Tribunal would say that the investigation done by the police has to be accepted unless there is concrete circumstances to hold otherwise. In the very same charge sheet submitted by the police it is recorded that the claimant is the registered owner and he is having the insurance policy. But the Tribunal would rely upon the plain paper document Ext.A8 and ultimately hold that the claimant is not the owner and then imposes the liability on the insurance company. The approach of the Tribunal and the award itself makes me feel that the Tribunal was not confident about the ownership or about the person who was riding the bike. The matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh trial after permitting all M.A.C.A. 1808 OF 2005 -:3:- concerned to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.8.08. The deposited amount shall remain undisbursed and it will be disbursed after final adjudication of the case to the entitled. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-