IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 11TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 20TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2289 of 2007() ------------------------------- OPMV.880/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/SUPP.3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE,3RD PARTY WING OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): PTNR.& RESPDTS.1 & 2 AND SUPPL.4TH REPDT. -------------------------------------------------------- 1. ANEESH BABU, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, S/O. R.K. ABDUL KAREEM, RESIDING AT SOUTH STREET, PUDUNAGARAM POST, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ASHRAF, S/O. RASAK P., RESIDING AT MANGODE, PUDUNAGARAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 3. ABDUTHAHIR, S/O. RASHEED, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS, RESIDING AT MANGODE, PUTHUNAGARAM POST, CHITTUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DIST. 4. M.U. THANKACHAN, ATHIRA VILLA, PUDOOR, KODUNTHIRAPPULLY,PALAKKAD. ADV. MR.LIJU. M.P FOR R3 & R4 MR.P.R.VENKETESH FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: SS MACA.No. 2289 of 2007 ORDER IN I.A.NO.2991/2007 IN M.A.C.A. NO.2289 OF 2007 DISMISSED 11.11.2009 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN JUDGE //TRUE COPY // C.A TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.2289 OF 2007 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P (MV) 880/1999. The claimant, a passenger in a private Jeep, sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/- with 6% interest. Respondents 2 to 4 were directed to pay the amount. Now, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company would contend that claimant was a passenger in a private jeep which was covered by the Act Only Policy, which would indicate that there was no coverage for the passenger in the private vehicle. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had made available before me the copy of the Policy, which would show that it was a 'Á' Policy issued to a private vehicle. Therefore by extending the principle laid down in United India Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Tilak Singh 2006 (2) KLT 884 (SC) the status of the passenger is that of a gratuitous passenger, not covered by the policy and so Insurance company is bound to be exonerated from the liability. I do so. M.A.C.A No.2289 OF 2007 2 Then the next question arises, who should be liable to pay ? R2 is the driver. R4 is the registered owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. R4 had filed a written statement wherein it is contended by him that he had sold the vehicle, to one Ummer Sherif of Chittur as early as on 10.7.1998. The accident had taken place on 30.03.1999. So if the vehicle has been sold in favour of this Ummer Sherif, then the 4th respondent would not be the owner on the date of the accident. But unfortunately in spite of a contention, the claimant did not implead Ummer Sherif nor the registered owner nor insisted for their impleadment by raising a plea of non joinder of necessary parties. The Tribunal also should have raised the plea regarding non joinder and answered it. Nothing was done. Since the Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability, the question of ownership looms large and decision has to be taken regarding the ownership of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration by the Tribunal after impleading Ummer Sherif. Therefore the award in challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal with a direction to the claimant to implead Ummer Sherif as a party and thereafter decide whether R4 or this Ummer Sherif was the owner of the M.A.C.A No.2289 OF 2007 3 vehicle on the date of the accident and thus fix liability on that person along with R2. The Insurance Company is exonerated from the liability on account of the fact that it is an Act Policy and as it does not cover the risk of a passenger traveling in private jeep. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2009. The amount deposited by the Insurance Company, if not withdrawn be reimbursed to it and in case it is withdrawn let there be an order for recovery of the said amount from the person who will be decided as the owner of the vehicle on the date of the accident. Since the accident is of the year 1999, every endeavour shall be made to dispose of the matter within four months from the date of the first appearance of the parties before the Tribunal. M.N. KRISHNAN JUDGE. SS