IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.CHITAMBARESH THURSDAY, THE 10TH NOVEMBER 2011 / 19TH KARTHIKA 1933 MACA.No. 1189 of 2008(C) ----------------------- O.P(MV) NO.973/01 OF THE M.A.C.T, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT : 3RD RESPONDENT -------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD, REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER,REGIONAL OFFICE, SHARNYA,HOSPITAL ROAD,KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE ADV. JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS : PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY --------------- 1. V.A.RAICHEL,AGED ABOUT 33,W/O.LATE KUNJUMON,VELIKATHU VEETTIL,VADACKAL, ALAPPUZHA-3. 2. M.M.AZIZ,AGED ABOUT 31,S/O.MUHAMMED, MANAMEL HOUSE,KANAYANNOOR VILLAGE,ERNAKULAM. 3. KOZHY OUSEPH,S/O.C.V.THOMAS, PROPRIETOR,SUPREME ELECTRONICS,DFC ROAD, KALOOR,COCHIN. ADV. SRI.B.PRAMOD FOR R1 ADV. JAMES JOS FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/11/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & V.CHITAMBARESH, JJ. *********************** M.A.C.A No.1189 of 2008 ***************************** Dated this the 10th day of November, 2011 JUDGMENT BASANT, J. Insurance company is the appellant. Deceased was riding a scooter. There was an accident involving the scooter which the deceased was riding and a mini lorry driven by the 2nd respondent, owned by the 3rd respondent herein and insured by the appellant herein. 2. The driver of the vehicle was not served and it is said that he was deleted from the array of parties. The 2nd respondent, the alleged owner took up a contention that he was only a former owner in respect of the vehicle and that he was not the real owner on the date of the accident. The 3rd respondent/insurance company, the appellant herein, admitted that there was a policy of insurance issued in respect of the vehicle, but took up a plea that not the 2nd respondent, but the transferee under him was the owner/insured. 3. Curiously and inexplicably, no steps were taken to implead the real owner on the party array. The Tribunal M.A.C.A No.1189/08 2 proceeded to pass the impugned award directing the 3rd respondent to satisfy the award. An amount of Rs.6,80,000/- was directed to be paid. 4. The learned counsel for the insurance company submits that the very claim is not proper inasmuch as no claim was pressed against the driver of the vehicle and the real owner/insured was not brought on the array of parties. The claim without proper parties on the array should not have been entertained. The appellant insurer had raised a contention that the driver has no valid licence. Without the real owner/insured on the party array, the appellant could not properly pursue that defence, it is further urged. 5. We have considered all the relevant inputs. We are satisfied that proper parties were not arrayed before the Tribunal. We are, however, satisfied that a further opportunity can be given to the claimant/wife of the deceased to cure the defects and claim compensation from the driver, the real owner and the insurer of the vehicle. This appeal can succeed only to the above extent. M.A.C.A No.1189/08 3 6. In the result: a) This appeal is allowed in part; b) The impugned award is set aside; c) The Tribunal is directed to dispose of O.P(MV) No.973 of 2001 afresh in accordance with law after giving the claimant an opportunity to bring on record the necessary and proper parties. Needless to say the parties shall be permitted to adduce relevant and necessary evidence if any before fresh disposal; d) The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 15.12.2011. All necessary steps shall be taken by the claimant for impleadment etc. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously thereafter as possible - at any rate, within a period of six months from that date. Compliance shall be reported to this Court. 7. We are informed that certain amounts have been deposited before the Tribunal to satisfy the award as the steps for execution were taken during the pendencey of the appeal. We direct that the amounts available in deposit shall be retained in deposit by the Tribunal in its name for a further period of one M.A.C.A No.1189/08 4 year and appropriate directions regarding release shall be issued when the matter is disposed of afresh. 8. If any part of the amount is already released to the claimant, no steps for recovery of such amount need be taken till the disposal of the O.P afresh. 9. Hand over a copy of this judgment to the learned counsel for the claimants/respondents and the appellant/insurer, who shall produce copy of this judgment before the Tribunal when they appear on 15.12.2011. Registry shall communicate this judgment forthwith to the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (V.CHITAMBARESH, JUDGE) rtr/