IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM SATURDAY, THE 23RD MAY 2009 / 2ND JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 355 of 2003(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1287/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., PAYYANNUR, REPRESENTED BY THE ASST.MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, ANNEXE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-682 016. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------- 1. C.SANTHOSH, AGED 19 YEARS, S/O. LATE C.THAYYAMMA, KOOKANAM, KARIVELLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. C.KUNHAPPAN, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. LAKKAYYAN, KOOKANAM, KARIVELLOOR, KANNUR DISTRICT. 3. CAMADIL PRAVEEN, S/O. NARAYANI AMMA, KANDOTH HOUSE, P.O. VELLUR. 4. BAPPIKANTAKATH ASHRAF, S/O. MARUYUMMA, EACHILAMVAYAL, VELLUR (VIA), PAYYANNUR. 5. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., ARISTO COMPLEX, MAHE. 6. MAVILA ERATHUVEETTIL MOHANAN, ALAKKAD, P.O. KANKOL, VIA. PAYYANNUR. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R5 SRI.KALEESWARAM RAJ FOR R5 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/05/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 355 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of May, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the insurance company challenging the award passed by the MACT authorising recovery from the company. The appellant's specific case is that policy issued by them expired on 6.2.1996 and the accident happened on 21.5.1996. Even though registered owner of the vehicle, which involved in the accident, who is the sixth respondent herein, was a party before the MACT, he did not produce valid policy to shift the liability to the insurance company. If the vehicle was not covered by any policy as on the date of the accident, then the insurance company has no liability to indemnify the registered owner. Consequently recovery has to be made against registered owner as he has vicarious liability for the accident caused by his driver. Appeal is therefore allowed by vacating the award against the appellant, but confirming it against respondents 3 and 6, the driver 2 and register owner respectively of the vehicle, with direction to the MACT to proceed for recovery against the said persons. If there is dispute of ownership of the vehicle among the respondents, it is for the MACT to settle it at the time of execution after hearing both sides and after considering evidence. Appellant need not be involved in this process. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 3