IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH TUESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2008 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2137 of 2006() ---------------------------------- OPMV.392/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S):/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, MAIN ROAD, PARAVOOR-683 513. BY ADV. SRI.C.V.BIMAL ROY RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------- 1. SHIJO P.V., S/O.VARGHESE, PAYYAPPILLY HOUSE, MANICKAMANGALAM P.O., NETTINEMPILLY KARA, KALADY-683 574. 2. DIGESH K.C., S/O.CHANDRAN K.K., KALATHINKAL HOUSE, ELANTHIKARA KARA, PUTHENVELIKKARA VILLAGE. 3. K.A.ROOSH, S/O.ANIRUDHAN, KAVANIYATHIL HOUSE, ELENTHIKKARA P.O., PUTHENVELIKKARA. ADV. SRI.S.SAJU FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. ================================ M.A.C.A.No.2137 of 2006 - A =============================== Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2008. J U D G M E N T KOSHY, J. A passenger in an autorikshaw with registration number KL- 7T/8368 sustained injuries due to the negligence of the driver of the autorikshaw. The above autorikshaw was admittedly covered by a valid insurance policy issued by the insurance company. He claimed a compensation for Rs.1,57,500/-. Tribunal awarded only Rs.43,200/- including medical expences. Only dispute raised by the insurance company in this appeal is that the vehicle had no fitness certificate at the time of accident. Apart from an averment in the written statement, it was not proved that there is no fitness certificate to the vehicle. It is true that driver and owner of the vehicle were declared ex-parte by the Tribunal but the insurance company was given right to contest the case. In the written statement, insurance company has stated that at the time of accident the vehicle though has valid insurance policy there was no fitness certificate. Normally, at the time of issue of M.A.C.A.No.2137 of 2006 - A 2 insurance policy to a taxi vehicle, insurance company will insist for fitness certificate and other documents. It was not proved that during the time of accident, the vehicle was not fit to be driven. It is the burden of the insurance company to plead and prove exclusion of liability where it is admitted that vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance. Here, no evidence was adduced to prove the pleadings. Documents were not summoned from the RTO office also. Therefore, it cannot be contended that vehicle had not valid fitness certificate at the time of accident. From the facts and circumstances, it is clear that insurance company did not discharge the burden to prove that the vehicle insured by it had no fitness certificate. Hence, we find that no grounds are made out to interfere in the award passed by the Tribunal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY, JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE bkn/-