IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 12TH JANUARY 2009 / 22ND POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1539 of 2006() ----------------------- OPMV.187/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, VADAKARA NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER&RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. A.NARAYANAN, S/O.LATE GOPALAN, ANCHANTAVIDA HOUSE, P.O.MANIYOOR, VADAKARA TALUK. 2. M.BIJU, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, `SREE HARI', V.O.ROAD, BADAGARA-673 101. 3. SHIBU, S/O.GOPALAN, MEETHAL VEETTIL HOUSE, P.O.MANIYOOR, BADAGARA TALUK. ADV. SRI.PULIKKOOL ABUBACKER FOR R3 SRI.ZUBAIR PULIKKOOL FOR R3 SRI.C.P.MOHAMMED NIAS FOR R2 SRI.T.R.ASWAS FOR R1 SMT.K.G.SARALAKUTTY FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1539 OF 2006 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Heard senior counsel appearing for the appellant and counsel appearing for the first respondent. Claimant was a passenger in a private vehicle covered by an Act policy. The accident was caused on account of negligence of driver of the same vehicle and so much so by virtue of decision of Supreme Court in UNITED INDIA INSURACE CO. LTD. V. TILAK SINGH, (2006) 2 K.L.T. 884, the passengers are not covered. Counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that the first respondent was very seriously injured leading to 70% permanent disability. The award was passed prior to pronouncement of the above judgment by the Supreme Court. This Court vide two interim orders respectively dated 12.9.2006 and 1.11.2006 ordered payment of fifty per cent of the award amount to the claimant and later ordered deposit of the same in a nationalised bank in favour of the 2 claimant authorising the bank to release only the interest. We do not think there is any scope for recalling the above orders. However, in view of the decision of the Supreme Court we exonerate the insurance company from payment of balance amount. Since counsel appearing for the first respondent submitted that injured is in debt incurred for the treatment, there will be direction to the Bank to release one third and retain deposit of the balance amount on long term deposit for the injured to utilise the interest for his maintenance. Claimant can move the MACT for release of the balance when required. Further, the claimant is free to proceed for recovery of balance against registered owner. Appeal stands allowed to the above extent. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C.K. ABDUL REHIM) Judge. kk 3