IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 8TH JANUARY 2010 / 18TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 267 of 2007() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18/03/2006 IN OPMV. 836 /2001 IN OPMV.3555/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRISSUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT:RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAYAN, S/O.SANKARAN, KOMTHATTIL HOUSE, P.O.PERINGAVU, PANDIKKAVU, PIN-680 018. 2. GOPI.K.S., KURULI HOUSE, P.O.PONNUKKARA, PUTHUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. P.A.PRAKASAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN, ARIYODATH HOUSE, P.O.POTORE, THRISSUR. R1 BY ADVS.MR.V.CHITAMBARESH, MR.T.C.SURESH MENON. R2 BY ADV. MR.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 08/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss ORDER ON I.A.NO.366/2007 IN MACA NO.267/2007 DISMISSED 8/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 267 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)3555/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle. The original owner of the vehicle is the first respondent in the O.P. He had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 3rd respondent in the O.P. and during the pendency of the appeal it appears that the 3rd respondent died and his legal representative has been impleaded as R4. Now the question for consideration is that whether there was a valid coverage for the pillion rider in the case. In paragraph 6 of the written statement the insurance company has specifically contended that the policy issued for R1 is an Act only policy which will not cover the risk of a pillion rider and hence the 2nd respondent is not liable to indemnify the claim of the petitioner. So the specific contention of the insurance company is to the effect that M.A.C.A. 267 OF 2007 -:2:- being an Act only policy a pillion rider is not covered. Unfortunately the Tribunal did not raise the issue on that point in order to consider that point to arrive at a decision. So the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal has already found that the rider did not have a valid driving licence and therefore right to recovery against 3rd respondent in the O.P. is granted. But if there is no coverage then that question may not arise at all. Since the additional 4th respondent is impleaded after the death of R3 in claim petition and as the 3rd respondent, he has not entered appearance before this Court, the insurance company is directed to take out notice to him and let the matter be heard in accordance with law. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability between the 2nd and 3rd respondent in the O.P. are concerned and for that purpose let the parties be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Let the insurance company take out notice to the additional 4th M.A.C.A. 267 OF 2007 -:3:- respondent for a proper disposal of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.2.2010. It is made clear that the presence of the first respondent in the O.P. need not be insisted as he has already transferred the vehicle. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-