IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 12TH KARTHIKA 1932 MACA.No. 1883 of 2007() ------------------------------ OPMV.120/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): /3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MOTOR THIRD PARTY CELL, M.G. ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. WILSON P.G., PADIPPURACKAL, NETTOOR, KULANADA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. BINU JOSEPH, S/O. JOSEPH, KUZHAPPARA (H), RAYARORE, ALAKKODU KARA, THALIPPARAMBU, KANNUR DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/11/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1937 OF 2007 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1883 OF 2007 & M.A.C.A.NO.1937 OF 2007 ............................................. Dated this the 3rd day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV)Nos.120/2003 and 2306/2001. The claimant sustained injuries and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.9,500/= in OP(MV) No.2306/2001 and Rs.78,950/= in OP(MV)No.120/2003. The Tribunal found that there was a valid policy and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. 2. The grievance of the insurance company is to the effect that the contention raised in the written statement which goes to the root of the matter has not been considered at all by the Tribunal. The learned counsel had shown me a copy of the written statement. The last sentence in para-2 reads as follows: “Moreover the second respondent has no valid permission to drive a taxi car at the time of the accident.” : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1883 OF 2007 & M.A.C.A.NO.1937 OF 2007 3. The learned counsel would contend that the insurance company has raised the contention regarding absence of badge which is necessary under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act to drive vehicle. Unfortunately neither the parties nor the Tribunal did consider that question so as to raise an issue and therefore, it has resulted in not answering that point. So the question posed by the insurance company is that the driver did not have valid badge to drive a taxi and therefore it is in violation of the policy conditions and therefore the insurance company is at lest entitled to get recovery right from the owner. 4. There is much force in that contention and unfortunately in spite of even publication the owner is not appearing before court to help the court. Since the trial court did not consider that point at all, it has become inevitable to direct the Tribunal to consider that point after hearing all concerned. 5. Therefore the award under challenge so far as it relates to the inter se liability between the insurance company : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1883 OF 2007 & M.A.C.A.NO.1937 OF 2007 and the owner is to be found and for that purpose parties be permitted to adduce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Any cost incurred for the publication has also to be tacked to the cost and must be realised from the owner, if he is ultimately found liable for reimbursement. It is also made clear that the insurance company has to take out notice to the owner again after it enters appearance before the Tribunal. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1883 OF 2007 & M.A.C.A.NO.1937 OF 2007 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 8th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T