IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DECEMBER 2008 / 12TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2864 of 2008() --------------------------------- OPMV.2260/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT IN OP(MV)NO.2260/04: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMTED, PERUMBAVOOR, BRANCH, MULLAPPALLY BUILDING, A.M. ROAD, PERUMBAVOOR, REP. BY ITS MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE,OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STRET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND 1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BIJU C.S., S/O. SIMON CHULLICKAL HOUSE, KUTTAMPUZHA, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. P.O.XAVIER, S/O OUSEPH, PALLICKA HOUSE, CHERANALLOOR, KOOVAPPADY P.O. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ J.B.KOSHY & THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JJ. -------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2864 of 2008 ------------------------------------- Dated 3rd December, 2008 JUDGMENT Koshy,J . This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company. The only contention raised by the appellant is that there was violation of permit conditions and, therefore, even if compensation was ordered to be paid by the insurance company, it should have been given the right of recovery from the insured. When the insurance company filed written statement, it denied each and every allegations made in the claim petition and contended that the vehicle was not insured, it has no permit etc. But later, the policy was produced and now there is no dispute that the offending vehicle was duly covered with insurance policy issued by it during the relevant period, even though that was denied in the written statement. Contention raised in this appeal is that even though there was valid permit, the permit will be valid only if tax is paid but the charge sheet shows that tax for the period in question was paid only on the next day of the accident. But, such a specific plea regarding non- payment of tax was not raised in the written statement. Further, it appears that no arguments were also addressed before the Tribunal regarding the same even though issue No.3, viz; “Who are all liable to MACA.2864/2008 2 pay compensation?” was raised. It is settled law that once coverage of insurance is admitted, it is for the insurance company to plead and prove that it is not liable to pay compensation. No evidence was adduced and no records were summoned. No steps were taken and not even an oral evidence was adduced by the insurance company to prove such a contention. It is seen that no such argument was also raised at the time of hearing except generally denying existence of valid permit and insurance policy. In the above circumstances, we see no ground to interfere with the award. The appeal is dismissed. J.B.KOSHY JUDGE THOMAS P. JOSEPH JUDGE tks