IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND MARCH 2010 / 11TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 161 of 2010(D) -------------------------- OPMV.1745/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------- IQBAL, S/O. ABDUL KAREEM, MEENATHU LAKSHAM VEEDU, PALLIPAD VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.RASHEED C.NOORANAD RESPONDENT(S)/ RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. SALAMUDHEEN.M., S/O. MUHAMMED KUTTY, THARAYIL HOUSE, ERUVA MURI, PATHIYOOR, KAYAMKULAM. 2. K.K.CHACKO, S/O. KOZHY, KOCHUKALEECKAL VEEDU, BHARANIKAVU, MAVELIKKARA. 3. HASHIM, SHIMA NIVAS, NORTH OF SHEHIDAR MASJID, KAYAMKULAM. 4. THE BRANCH MANAGER, NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., KAYAMKULAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/03/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 161 OF 2010. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 2nd day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case I am inclined to dispose of the matter in the admission stage itself so that difficulties can be avoided to all. This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV)1745/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has fixed a compensation of Rs.26,450/- but dismissed the case on the ground that as case against R1 and R3 was dismissed since steps were not taken, the case against R2 was abated and therefore the insurance company may not be saddled with the liability though there being a preliminary liability or a vicarious liability. I am afraid that the Tribunal should not have resorted to such methods and the net result is injustice being done to the parties. The learned Tribunal himself mentioned that I.A.s were filed for setting aside the dismissal of the O.P. so far as it relates to M.A.C.A. 161 OF 2010 -:2:- respondents 1 and 3 but that were dismissed. So the Court is also conscious of the fact that there cannot be any award against the insurance company without fixing the preliminary liability or the vicarious liability. Therefore the Court should not have resorted to that procedure and dismissed the case. Therefore I set aside the order passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and remand the case back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration. Needless to say the Court shall restore I.As.874, 875, 876/09, hear the other side and pass appropriate orders so that the injustice is averted. If a petition is filed for setting aside the abatement against the 2nd respondent that also be permitted and after complying with the procedural formalities let the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. The appellant shall also take out notice to the insurance company for further participation in the matter. The appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.3.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-