IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 7TH JUNE 2010 / 17TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 934 of 20043 ----------------------------------- OPMV.279/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT : APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., AJAY VIHAR, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-16. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS / CLAIMANT AND R-1 & 2: ------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. PEETHAMBARAN, S/O.RAVUNNI, KUNDINI HOUSE, MATTATHUR DESOM, MATTATHUR VILLAGE, MATTATHURKUNNU POST, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK. 2. T.A.ANANDAKUMAR, S/O.T.S.ANANDARAJAN, THUNDATHIL HOUSE, CHERUTHONI POST, IDUKKI. 3. RAJAN, S/O. MATHEW, THOTTIYAN HOUSE, KODALY, CHELAKATTUKARA POST. ADV. SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM FOR R3 SRI.P.V.BABY FOR R1 SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH FOR R1 SRI.GEORGEKUTTY MATHEW FOR R2 SRI.P.A.JOSEPH FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/06/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 972 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.Nos.934 & 972 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 7th day of June 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. When these appeals are taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the common appellant submits that these appeals have become infructuous in view of the judgment in MACA No.793/04. 2. The Tribunal found respondent No.2/driver of the offending vehicle bearing Regn. No.KER 3792 was negligent. The above finding was affirmed by this court in the appeal referred to above. However, the case was remanded to the Tribunal to reassess the quantum of compensation. It is brought to our notice that thereafter the Tribunal has passed a fresh award and the appellant/company has satisfied the same. In any view of the matter these two appeals in which the only challenge is against the finding of negligence entered against respondent No.2, the driver of the vehicle insured with the appellant, have become infructuous. Therefore, they are dismissed as infructuous. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes