IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1880 of 2009(C) -------------------------- OPMV.569/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ---------------------------------- VISWAMMA, W/O. SREENIVASAN, PANASSERIL, KOMMADU WARD, ALAPPUZHA-8. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------- 1. D. RANGASWAMY, PROPRIETOR, SREEDEVI TRANSPORT, 55-A, RAMACHANDRA ROAD, R.S.PURAM, COIMBATORE. 2. PRASAD, S/O. RAJAGOPALAN, KAVUNGAL VEETTIL WARD NO. VIII NENMARA PANCHAYATH NEAR PATHINASSERRY NES BLOCK, PALAKKAD DIST. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., COIMBATORE. ADV. SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 31/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1880 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in O.P.(MV)569/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal found that it took place on account of the negligence of the 2nd respondent. The 2nd respondent was driving the bus bearing Reg.No.KL-7/AE 449. The insurance company entered appearance and contended that they have issued a policy with respect to the vehicle T.N.37/E 4444 owned by the first respondent. So it appears on the facts that a Tamil Nadu registered vehicle by virtue of the provisions of the M.V.Act has to be registered under the State of Kerala and most probably TN-37/E 4444 has been re-registered in Kerala as KL-7/AE 449. But it is a matter that has to be proved. I think the claimant should produce materials or the owner should give or the insurance company has to take steps. The learned counsel for the insurance company M.A.C.A. 1880 OF 2009 -:2:- contends before me in the absence of those materials it may not be possible for the insurance company to admit the existence of a policy. It is a point which cannot be simply brushed aside. So there is a duty cast upon to establish that TN-37/E 4444 owned by the first respondent and in whose name the policy stands has been subsequently re-registered as KL-7/AE 449. Therefore I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the parties to establish that factor. Since the matter is going back and as there is a contention for enhancement of compensation it can also be considered by the Tribunal. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside, the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and the parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. The claimant shall take out notice to the owner afresh so that it will be of some help to the Court to find out the truth. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 28.4.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-