IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN TUESDAY, THE 17TH JUNE 2008 / 27TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 684 of 2003() -------------------------------- OPMV.501/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------ V.J.MATHEW, S/O. JOSEPH, VELUTHADATHU PARAMBIL, KEERAMPARA P.O., VALIYACHAL, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. SRI.VIJU ABRAHAM SRI.JOY C. PAUL RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS, S/O. DEVASSIA, KALAPURACKAL HOUSE, MARIGIRI KARA, MARYGIRI P.O., THANKAMONY VILLAGE. 2. JOSEPH JOSEPH, PUNNAVELIKUNNEL HOUSE, MARIGIRI P.O., THANKAMONY VILLAGE. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, KATTAPPANA. BY ADV. SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/06/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 691 OF 2003, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & P.N.Ravindran, JJ. ===================== M.A.C.A.Nos.684 & 691 of 2003 ===================== Dated this the 17th day of June, 2008. JUDGMENT Koshy,J. These cases are filed by the owner of the vehicle, the second respondent in O.P.(M.V.)Nos.501 and 502 of 1999 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha. The claimants in O.P.(M.V.)Nos. 501 and 502 of 1999 sustained injuries in a motor accident due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant. The Tribunal calculated the compensation and directed the Insurance Company to pay compensation and also directed them to recover from the appellant due to violation of the policy conditions. According to the Insurance Company, the jeep was used not for hire or reward. But it was a private jeep. The appellant was ex parte before the Tribunal. Now he filed the appeal when the execution proceedings were taken by the Insurance Company against him for recovery of the amount ordered by the Tribunal. According to MACA 684 & 691/03 -: 2 :- him, since there was valid insurance policy, he did not specifically contest the case. It is the contention of the appellant that in his neighbouring house there was a marriage and the vehicle was used for purchasing some articles in connection with the marriage and they were close relations and the vehicle was not driven for hire or reward. Even though the appellant was ex parte, there is no evidence adduced to show that the vehicle was used for carrying passengers for hire or reward either by the Insurance Company or by the parties. 2. In the above circumstances, we remand both the petitions, if the appellant pays a cost of Rs.2,000/- each to the third respondent - Insurance Company within two months from today. If the above cost is paid within two months, the award with regard to the liability to the Insurance Company will stand set aside and that the issue can be reconsidered. Finding of negligence and assessment of quantum of compensation are not disputed. Both the appellant and the Insurance Company can adduce evidence with regard to the question regarding liability of the Insurance Company. If the cost is not paid as stipulated above, the award will stand confirmed. MACA 684 & 691/03 -: 3 :- The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.8.2008. J.B.Koshy, Judge. P.N.Ravindran, Judge. ess 19/6