IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.PADMANABHAN NAIR THURSDAY, THE 14TH FEBRUARY 2008 / 25TH MAGHA 1929 MFA.No. 619 of 2002(C) --------------------------------- OPMV.1366/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOTTAYAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. SAJAN KURIAKOSE, EDATTU HOUSE, VADAVATHOOR, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJESH KUMAR P.N., PUNNAKATTU HOUSE, KUMARANALLOOR, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.BABY THOMAS THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/02/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO.619 OF 2002 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 14th day of February, 2008 J U D G M E N T -------------------- Second respondent-Insurer in O.P(MV) No.1366 of 1992 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam, is the appellant. Appeal is filed against the award passed by the Tribunal by which the appellant was made liable for the compensation awarded. 2. First respondent-petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident. He filed the Original Petition claiming compensation impleading the second respondent and appellant as owner and Insurer of the vehicle. It was alleged that on 9.1.2992 while the first respondent was walking along the K.K. Road at Kottayam, a Scooter, bearing Reg. No.KL-5/A-4604 ridden by the second respondent came in a rash or negligent manner and hit against the first respondent causing injuries. Second respondent did not appear and contest. Appellant alone contested the case. It was contended that the vehicle was not covered with a valid policy M.F.A. NO.619 OF 2002 -: 2 :- of insurance issued by the appellant. Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent, rider of the Scooter. Tribunal also found that the first respondent was entitled to a compensation of Rs.22,325/- with interest. Overruling the objections raised by the appellant that there was no valid policy of insurance, the appellant was directed to pay the compensation. Challenging that award, this appeal is filed. 3. Second respondent, rider of the Scooter, did not appear and contest. First respondent-petitioner also did not produce the policy of insurance. Tribunal found that the appellant though denied the existence of a policy, in the final report filed in the criminal case there was a statement to the effect that the Investigating Officer had verified the insurance policy. I have gone through the final report, Exhibit A2. There is no statement in Exhibit A2 to the effect that the vehicle was covered with a valid policy of insurance issued by the appellant. There is also no statement to the effect that the police officer perused the policy copy. Exhibit A3 is the Assistant Motor Vehicle Inspector's report. In the report it M.F.A. NO.619 OF 2002 -: 3 :- was stated that insurance policy and driving licence were not produced for verification. So the finding the Tribunal that the vehicle was covered with a policy of insurance is unsustainable and liable to be set aside. In the result, appeal is allowed. The finding of the Tribunal that the first respondent is entitled to the compensation of Rs.22,325/ with interest is confirmed. But the award passed against the appellant alone is set aside. The appellant is exonerated. I make it clear that the first respondent can realise the compensation awarded by the Tribunal from the owner and driver of the vehicle. K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, JUDGE. vsv K. PADMANABHAN NAIR, J. ===================== M.F.A. NO.619 OF 2002 ===================== J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------- 14TH FEBRUARY, 2008