IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN MONDAY, THE 22ND MARCH 2010 / 1ST CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 31271 of 2009(D) -------------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER IN IA 1693 /2009 IN OPMV.908/2007 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- K.C.MATHEW, KUNNATHOOR HOUSE,MEVELLOOR P.O.,KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. MR.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENT(S): --------------------------- 1. SARALA,W/O.LATE PRASANNAN, PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 2. AKSHARA (MINOR),D/O.PRASANNAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN,SARALA, W/O.LATE PRASANNAN,PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 3. AKSHY (MINOR),S/O.PRASANNAN, REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN,SARALA, W/O.LATE PRASANNAN,PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA. 4. NARAYANAN,S/O.KUMARAN, PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 5. SARADA,W/O.NARAYANAN, PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. Kss ..2/- ..2... WPC.NO.31271/2009 D 6. PREMKUMAR,S/O.KUMARAN, PARAPPALLY KAROTU HOUSE, MANNANAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE. 7. K.C.VARKEY @ BABY,S/O.CHACKO, KOTTAYIL HOUSE,ANAMALA BHAGAM, PADINGARUMBHAGAM KARA,ATHIRAMPUZHA VILLAGE, NOW RESIDING AT KOTTAYIL HOUSE, BHARANAGANAM VILLAGE,PALA. 8. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., 2ND FLOOR,DAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION,TRIPUNITHURA. 9. DINESHKUMAR V., DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,2ND FLOOR,DAMODAR CHAMBERS, STATUE JUNCTION,TRIPUNITHURA. R7 BYADV. MR. M.S.KALESH R8 BY ADV.SMT.SARAH SALVY THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss WPC.NO.31271/2009 D APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS: P1: COPY OF THE CLAIM PETITION FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MACT PALA. P2: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER. P3: COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT BEFORE THE MACT PALA. P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DTD. 8/07/09 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE MACT PALA. P5: COPY OF THE NOTICE OF CANCELLATION OF POLICY, DTD. 17/12/07 ISSUED BY THE 8TH RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER. P6: COPY OF THE REPLY DTD. 29/12/07 BY THE PETITIONER. P7: COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION DTD. 29/12/07 BY THE PETITIONER TO THE REGIONAL MANAGER OF THE 8TH RESPONDENT. P8: COPY OF THE IMPLEADING PETITION FILED BY THE PETITONER. P9: COPY OF THE OBJECTION BY RESPONDENTS 1 - 6. P10: COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE MACT PALA IN I.A.NO.1693/09 IN OP(MV) NO.908/07. RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS: R8(A): COPY OF THE CHEQUE DTD. 04/07/2007 WHICH IS DISHONORED. R8(B): COPY OF RETURNED CHEQUE REMITTANCE MEMO FROM SBT DTD. 24/07/2007. R8(C): COPY OF THE POLICY CANCELLED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. R8(D): COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT FILED BY NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. IN OP(MV) NO.908/2007 MACT PALA. /TRUE COPY/ P.A.TO JUDGE Kss K.SURENDRA MOHAN, J. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.31271 of 2009 ----------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT The petitioner is the second respondent in O.P.(MV) No.908/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The petition is filed by respondents 1 to 6 claiming compensation for the death of one Prasannan. According to the second respondent, his vehicle was insured by the 8th respondent and therefore, he contended that any liability to pay compensation would have to be fastened on the Insurance Company. However, the Insurance Company disputed liability by contending that a cheque that was issued towards payment of the premium due on the insurance policy was dishonoured and therefore the policy had been cancelled by the Insurance Company. According to the second respondent, he had not issued any cheque towards payment of the insurance premium. He had actually paid the insurance premium in cash to the 9th respondent, who was the development officer of the 8th respondent Insurance Company on his assurance that the amount would be paid to the 8th respondent. However, the above assertion of the petitioner was disputed by the 8th respondent Insurance Company. In the above wpc No.31271/2009 2 circumstances, the petitioner filed Ext.P8 petition for impleading the 9th respondent as an additional respondent in O.P.(MV) No.908/2007. However, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has dismissed Ext.P8 petition by Ext.P10 order. Ext.P10 order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. The 8th respondent Insurance Company has filed a counter affidavit contending that no liability could be fastened on the 8th respondent for the reason that there was no valid policy in existence covering the risk of the petitioner. According to the Insurance Company, the cheque that was issued towards payment of insurance premium had been dishonoured. Therefore, the policy itself was cancelled by the Insurance Company. According to the Insurance Company, the petitioner was only trying to validate a cancelled insurance policy by putting forward new stories. 3. Adv.M.S.Kalesh appears for the 7th respondent. He has no objection to the impleading petition being allowed. 4. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal has proceeded on the basis that the dispute that is sought to be adjudicated by the petitioner is a dispute inter se between respondents 8 and 9 in this Writ Petition. Therefore, according to the Tribunal, the issue does not directly arise for consideration in the claim wpc No.31271/2009 3 petition. However, the Tribunal has failed to notice the crucial fact that a determination of the case pleaded by the petitioner in this Writ Petition is necessary for deciding as to who should be made liable for compensating the petitioner in the claim petition. If the petitioner herein succeeds in proving that he had actually paid the insurance premium, that would certainly have an impact on deciding the question as to who should be made liable for the compensation. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in dismissing the application for impleading submitted by the petitioner. For a full and proper adjudication of all the issues that arise between the parties, it is necessary that the 9th respondent is also brought on party array and the case of the petitioner considered on the merits. In view of the above, Ext.P10 is liable to be set aside. I do so. I.A.No.1693/1999 in O.P.(MV) No.908/2007 is allowed. The 9th respondent in the interlocutory application is impleaded as the additional 4th respondent in the claim petition. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala is directed to try and dispose of O.P.(MV) No.908/2007 on the merits. K.SURENDRA MOHAN, Judge css/