IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2010 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 2165 of 2010() --------------------- OPMV.1031/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE ................. APPELLANT / 3RD RESPONDENT : ------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP.NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS DULY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. BY ADV. SRI. V.P.K. PANICKER RESPONDENTS / 1ST & 2ND RESPONDENTS & PETITIONER : --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PRINCIPAL, CIESCO TECHNICAL, INSTITUTE ITC, MUGHDHAR, KOZHIKODE-673 001. 2. RIYAD AHAMMED K.P., S/O.ABOOBACKER P.P., BUSHRA MAHAL HOUSE, KULANGARATHOPPU PARAMBA, KUNDUNGAL, KOZHIKODE- 673 003. 3. N.T.SABIRA, D/O.ALAVIKUTTY, ADHIL HOUSE, 15/321, MEDAPARAMBA, KUGHADHER, KOZHIKODE-673 001. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 10/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mn ...2/- MACA.No. 2165 of 2010() -2- ORDER ON I.A. NO. 2831/2010 IN MACA. NO. 2165/2010 DISMISSED 10/11/2010 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE Mn M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2165 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 10th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T As the contentions raised, that is an important contention, of non liability of the insurance company is not at all considered by the Tribunal, I feel in the admission stage itself the matter can be sent back for consideration of the same. The brief facts are as follows. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P. (MV)1031/05. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.19,250/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. The vehicle involved in this case is a private vehicle. The 3rd respondent has raised a contention that they have not collected any premium to cover the risk of a gratuitous passenger. It is contended that the vehicle is only covered by an Act M.A.C.A. 2165 OF 2010 -:2:- only policy. When it is an Act only policy it is a settled principle that the passengers in a private vehicle are not covered in view of the dictum laid down in Tilak Singh's case [United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Tilak Singh)2006 (2) KLT 884(SC). But unfortunately though the contention is raised the Tribunal has failed to consider that objection and just had recorded that the 3rd respondent has admitted the insurance and therefore passed an award against the insurance company. It is a mistake and it has to be considered and therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration of that point after giving due notice to all concerned. The insurance company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.10. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-