IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 5TH DECEMBER 2008 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 1466 of 2008(B) -------------------------------------- OP(MV) NO.3185/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR ..................................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------ THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRISSUR, NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.G. MUKESH, S/O. GOPALAN, MAMBRAVALAPPIL HOUSE, CHITTISSERY.P.O, ERAVAKKAD, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR. 2. T.J. LIJO, THATTIL HOUSE, THALORE.P.O, OLLUR, THRISSUR. 3. VIJAYANAND, S/O. GOPALAN, MAMBRAVALAPPIL HOUSE, ERAVAKKAD, NENMANIKKARA, THRISSUR. ADV. SRI.P.V.CHANDRAMOHAN - R1 & 3 SRI.C.A.CHACKO - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1466/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO.1737 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1466 OF 2008 DISMISSED SD/- 5/12/2008 M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1466 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV) No.3185/2002. The claimant, a pillion rider, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 22,800/-. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal contending that the tribunal went wrong in holding that additional premium of Rs. 110.50 paid, covers the risk of pillion rider. 2. The first respondent in the claim petition who has appeared in this appeal would contend that he has sold the vehicle in favour of the 2nd respondent in the claim petition and therefore he was not the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Unfortunately, neither the 1st respondent in the claim petition nor the 2nd respondent did appear before the tribunal. So far as the liability of the Insurance Company is concerned, the premium of Rs. 110.50 is received as “ADD : Liability For Employees Driving/ Riding No.2”. It is in explained, who is covered and the Insurance Company is bound to convince the court about the same. It has not chosen to give any evidence before the court. The learned counsel for the M.A.C.A.No. 1466/2008 -2- claimant would contend that particular wording takes in a pillion rider as well, whereas the Insurance Company would contend that unless that person is an employee of the insured he will not be covered. This is a matter which can be better explained by the persons who had issued the policy. Therefore I think the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the tribunal. Unfortunately, another point had been raised regarding ownership of the vehicle. That also may have to be considered. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the tribunal for considering the question regarding the liability of the Insurance Company as well as the ownership of the vehicle. The parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The first respondent in the claim petition is permitted to file a written statement and the tribunal is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. If additional parties are to be impleaded it may be done. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 12.1.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm