IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 9TH JUNE 2008 / 19TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1584 of 2004() ---------------------------------- OPMV.647/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TRIVANDRUM .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED THIRUVANANTHAPURAM NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER: ------------------------------------------ M. RAVEENDRAN, S/O. MADHAVAN, RAJANI NIVAS, NEAR PATHIRAPALLI JUNCTION, MUKKOLA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN SRI.N.NARAYANAN NAIR SRI.NAIR AJAY KRISHNAN SRI.SAIJO HASSAN SRI.A.S.SABU SRI.VIMAL KUMAR.A.V. SRI.A.G.GIRISH KUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1584 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 9th day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thiruvananthapuram, in OP(MV)No. 647/99. The application is filed under section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. In the light of the Full Bench decision of this court, it has been held that even if the rider of the bike is negligent, he can claim compensation under section 163 A of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend before me the main thrust of the contention is that if the rider of the bike is an owner of the vehicle then in the light of the decision reported in Dhanraj v. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. [2004 (3) KLT 813 (SC)] the said owner is not entitled to compensation from the Insurance Company by the policy. But now a situation has arisen in this case whereby the rider of the bike contends for the position that he is not the owner of the bike but it is somebody else. In support of that contention he has produced a photocopy of the registration certificate, which indicates that it is in the name of another person. So the whole question will revolve on the decision of Tribunal on the fact whether the rider of the bike was the owner of the vehicle or not. If he was the owner of the vehicle then in the light of the decision referred to above he may not be entitled to compensation under MACA No.1584/04 2 section 163A. If he is not the owner of the bike then as per the Full Bench decision of this court he may be entitled to compensation. Similarly it is pointed out to me by the learned counsel for the Insurance Company that the compensation awarded is not in consensus with the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act. It appears to be a contention, which also requires consideration. Therefore, that also is to be considered by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration as to whether the applicant in OP(MV) 647/99 is the owner of the vehicle or only a rider. Tribunal shall refix the compensation if he is entitled to in accordance with the schedule of the Motor Vehicles Act after hearing all concerned. For this purpose the Insurance Company as well as the claimant are entitled to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be decided by the Tribunal in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 23.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps