IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 5TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 866 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.1379/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER -------------------------------------- K.P.USMAN, S/O ABDULLA, AGED 44 YEARS, KOLLAPARAMBAN HOUSE, PO PAYYANAD (VIA) MANJERI MALAPPURAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.P.SAMSUDIN RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------- 1. VAZHENKARA VALANCHERI NASSAR, S/O MOHAMMED (DRIVER), ANAKKAYAM AMSOM, PO PAPPINIPPARA (VIA) MANJERI, MALAPPURAM. 2. RASIDA BANU, D/O HASSAN KUTTY, AMBALAPARAMBATH HOUSE, KODIYARA PO, KALLACHI, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, KINGS WAY BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD JUNCTION, CALICUT. BY ADV. SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVEREDTHE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 866 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Manjeri in O.P.(MV) No. 1379/2000. The tribunal awarded compensation of Rs. 13,050/- and directed R2 to deposit the amount within one month. It is against that decision the appeal is preferred. When the matter came up for consideration the learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice a compromise award passed by the Lok Adalath in O.P(MV) No. 83/2001. The learned counsel would contend that the said case had also arisen out of the same accident by usage of the very same vehicle and therefore the stand of the Insurance Company that there is no valid coverage for the vehicle is incorrect in the light of the said compromise by the Adalath. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration. Since the award of the Lok Adalath has become final and if it is proved that the vehicle involved in the accident is the same, and the claimant and another had sustained injuries in the same accident, the Insurance Company is estopped from denying the policy. But whether it relates to the same matter M.A.C.A. No. 866/2008 -2- requires consideration. I also make it very clear that the award was passed by the tribunal on 9.12.2004 and the appeal is filed on 21.5.2008. It was only on account of the delay caused by the appellant and therefore even if the Insurance company is liable, the Insurance company shall not be made liable to pay the interest from 9.12.04 till 21.5.08 , so also the owner. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remanded back for finding out whether there is any insurance policy and it may also consider about the question whether the claimant is entitled for any enhancement. For this purpose the parties are permitted to produce evidence and the tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 31.12.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm