IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 14TH SEPTEMBER 2009 / 23RD BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 668 of 2003() ------------------------------ O.P(MV) NO. 856/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/5TH RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)856/2001: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALAVI, S/O. MOOSA, THONOORAN HOUSE, THIRUVAZHAMHUNNU P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.HARIDAS MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & 6TH RESPONDENTS: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YOOSAF, S/O. HAMZA, MATTATHOOR HOUSE, ALLANALLUR P.O., MANNARKKAD TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, HOSPITAL JUNCTION, MANNARKKAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. SMT. K.C. BEENA FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= M.A.C.A.No. 668 of 2003 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Dated this the 14th day of September, 2009 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred by the 5th respondent in O.P.(MV) No.856 of 2001 of the Motor Accidents Tribunal, Ottappalam. The present appellant is the owner of the motor cycle involved in the accident, the 2nd respondent is the Insurance Company and the 1st respondent is the claimant before the Tribunal. 2. Notice to the 1st respondent is not completed. Since the dispute is inter se between the Insurance Company and the owner, notice to the 1st respondent is dispensed with. 3. The subject matter of this appeal is regarding the liability of the 5th respondent in the claim petition. He is the owner of the motor cycle which was ridden by the 4th respondent in the claim petition and the claimant was traveling as a pillion rider on the motor cycle. There was a collusion between the motor cycle and the car. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of respondents 1 and 4 before the Tribunal and apportioned the negligence of the car driver at 50% and motor cyclist at 50% and directed respondents 1 to 3 therein to pay 50% MACA 668/03 2 and respondents 4 and 5 50%. The Insurance Company was excluded from the liability on the ground that there was no valid insurance coverage for the vehicle. It is against that decision, the owner of the motor cycle has come up in appeal. 4. It is contended that the petitioner was in Bombay at that time and he could not give proper instruction to the lawyer to produce vehicular documents such as registration certificate, policy etc. and therefore, the court was not furnished with necessary data for a proper disposal of the case. So question that arise for determination is whether there was a valid policy for the vehicle involved in the accident. When the question of policy arises for consideration and if it is found that there was valid policy, then the subsequent question whether the pillion rider is covered by a policy issued may also arise for determination. If the owner has really got a valid policy and the policy covers the risk of the pillion rider, he need not be saddled with liability and Insurance Company should be directed to pay the amount. 5. So I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the appellant and therefore the award under challenge is set aside, so far as it relates to the interse liability between respondents 5 and 6 before the Tribunal are concerned. The 5th respondent in the claim petition namely, the appellant is permitted to file a written statement and produce insurance policy to satisfy MACA 668/03 3 regarding the coverage of the person involved in the accident. The Insurance Company is also permitted to file additional written statement and also raise the contention whether a pillion rider in a vehicle is covered by the policy. The parties are directed to appeal before the Tribunal on 11-11-2009. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mn.