IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 16TH OCTOBER 2008 / 24TH ASWINA 1930 MFA.No. 1532 of 2001(C) ----------------------- OPMV.1551/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S)3RD RESPONDENT : -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR RESPONDENT(S)/PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SHANKARAMANGALAM NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, MATHAMANGALAM P.O. MATHAMANGALAM BAZAR, KANNUR DISTRICT, (DIED) (APPLICANT) 2. SUBHADRA ANTHARJANAN, W/O SHANKARAMANGALAM NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 68 YEARS, SHANKARAMANGALAM, P.O. VILAYAMCODE. 3. S.E. SANKARAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O SHANKARAMANGALAM NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, AGED 52 YEARS, DO. DO. 4. DEVAKI. S., D/O DO. DO.. DO. DO. 5. SUBHADRA. S., D/O DO. DO.. DO. DO. (DELETED) 6. S. NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O DO. DO. DO. DO. 7. SYAMALA S., AGED 38 YEARS, W/O VALIYA KESAVAN NAMBOODIRI, ARAYAKEEL, PERIKAMANA ILLOM, P.O. NEELESWARAM. 8. KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, S.E. AGED 36 YEARS, S/O SHANKARAMANGALAM NARAYANAN NAMBOODIRI, PILATHARA P.O., VILAYAMCODE. 9. BHAVANI,S. AGED 30 YEARS, W/O RAJKUMAR, AMMANNAYA A.P. CIRCLE P.O. NARAMBADI, BADIYAKUKKA. 10. BALAN VADAKKINIYIL, S/O KUNHIRAMAN, VADAKKINIYIL HOUSE, C. POYIL, P.O. PARIARAM, TALIPARAMBA TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DIED). 11. VARAMBU MURIYAN ABOOBACKER, S/O MOIDEENKUTTY, P.O. MATHAMANGALAM, KANNUR DISTRICT. (DELETED) 12. VAZGHAVALAPPIL UNDERKATH SHAFI, S/O MOHAMMED KUNHU, KIZHAKKEKARA P.O., KADANNAPPILLY, KANNUR DISTRICT. DEATH OF THE 10TH RESPONDENT IS RECORDED AS PER ORDER DATED 30.1.08 VIDE MEMO CF 22/08. NAME OF 5TH AND 11TH RESPONDENTS ARE DELETED FROM PARTY ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE PETITIONER VIDE ORDER DATED 30.1.08 IN I.A.30/08. ADV. SRI.V.RAMKUMAR NAMBIAR FOR R10 SRI.P.BABU FOR R11 TO R14 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. NO. 1532 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 16th day of October, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)1551/95. One Narayanan Namboodiri sustained injuries in a road accident and he died during the pendency of the case and his legal representatives were impleaded as supplemental P2 to P9 before the Tribunal. First respondent in the claim petition is the owner, second respondent is the driver and respondent No.3 is the alleged insurer and respondent No.4 is alleged to be the transferee from first respondent of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.82,050/- in favour of supplemental petitioners 2 to 9 and directed the respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come in appeal. 2. During the pendency of the appeal 10th respondent in the appeal namely owner of the vehicle died and his legal M.F.A. NO. 1532 OF 2001 -:2:- representatives are impleaded as supplemental respondents 11 to 14. Though they were served they had not entered appearance. There was contention by the owner namely first respondent in the claim petition that he had transferred the vehicle in favour of the 4th respondent in the claim petition. Ext.B2 was one of the documents. The Tribunal held that it is a plain paper document which has not been proved and therefore repelled the contention of a transfer and held that R1 was the owner of the vehicle. 3. The insurance company's specific contention is to the effect that the accident had taken place on 11.5.95 whereas the policy issued by it namely Ext.B1 is only for a period up to 6.5.95 and so there was no valid insurance coverage for the vehicle on the date of accident and therefore the insurance company is not liable to pay the amount. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not considered that aspect at all. I had seen the affidavit filed by the insurance company wherein a specific contention is raised and also a specific question is put to the witness, Sankaran Namboodiri to the effect that whether there was valid policy up to 6.5.95. For the said question he has answered that he does M.F.A. NO. 1532 OF 2001 -:3:- know about it. When the accident had taken place on 11.5.95 and if the policy is only up to 6.5.95 then the question of insurance company being made liable to pay the amount may not be proper. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. So the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the liability of the insurance company and the legal representatives of the owner and insurance company are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions only regarding the question of existence of a valid policy as on the date of the accident. Since the legal representatives of the owner had not appeared before this Court I direct the insurance company to take out steps to issue notice from the Tribunal and thereafter the Tribunal can dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 1.12.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- M.F.A. NO. 1532 OF 2001 -:4:- M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = M.F.A. 1532 OF 2001 = = = = = = = = = = = O R D E R 16th October, 2008.