IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 24TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 3RD AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 1121 of 2008(B) ------------------------------------- OP(MV).NO.1524/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/ 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 35. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON. RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT RESPECTIVELY: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MRS. K.K.RAJAMMA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, W/O. SOMAN, KUNNUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD P.O., AMBALAPPAD, THRISSUR. 2. K.N.VIJAYAN, S/O. NARAYANAN, KUNNUMKUZHIYIL HOUSE, KUNDUKAD P.O., ATTUPURAM, THEKKUMKARA VILLAGE. R1 BY ADV. SRI.V.BINOY RAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/11/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. NO. 1121/2008-B: ORDER ON I.A. NO. 1370/2008 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 1121/2008-B DISMISSED 24/11/08. SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. //TRUE COPY// P.S. TO JUDGE. prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1121 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV)1524/01. In spite of notice in the delay condonation application the owner has not entered appearance before this Court. The Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.40,984/- and made the insurance company liable for the same. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come in appeal. 2. The material point to be determined in this case is what is the nature of the policy and whether there had been any suppression of any material fact at the time of issuance of the policy. It is the case of the insurance company that a policy was taken describing the vehicle as a private vehicle and premium has been collected only for the same. On the other hand the contention of the claimant is to the effect that even on the date of accident the vehicle was a taxi jeep and M.A.C.A. 1121 OF 2008 -:2:- therefore the insurance company is bound to indemnify. It is a well settled position of law that suppose there had been suppression of material facts before taking a policy then the insurance company can take shelter under the ground of fraud and avoid the liability. It is a matter which requires evidence. I feel an opportunity can be given to the parties to substantiate their contentions with respect to the fact whether the vehicle was described as a private vehicle in the proposal form at the time of issuance of the policy and if so what is the legal effect. For that purpose the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Both the parties are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their contentions and the insurance company is directed to take out notice to the owner from the Tribunal as he will be affected by any order passed by the Court. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.12.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-