IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 2790 of 2009(G) ----------------------- OPMV.225/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------- VISWANATHA PILLAI, VINOD BHAVAN, NANGIARKULANGARA.P.O., HARIPAD, ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE VARGHESE(PERUMPALLIKUTTIYIL) SRI.A.R.DILEEP SMT.SURYA SASI RESPONDENT(S)/RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. VENUGOPAL, PATHUKOTTU MADHOM, KUMARAPURAM, KARUVATTA THEKKUM MURI. 2. GOPLAN NAIR, KATTIL PUTHENPURACKAL, THULAMPARAMBU CENTRE, HARIPAD. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REP. BY THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THIRUVALLA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2790 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009. J U D G M E N T Since the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal I am disposing of the appeal without issuing notice to the other side. 2. This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV) 225/99. The claimants sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.17,050/-. 3. The Tribunal has fixed an amount of Rs.17,050/- but dismissed the claim application on the ground that the driver is not impleaded. I cannot find fault with the Tribunal when it holds that in a 166 of M.V.Act case the junction of the driver is absolutely necessary for the reason that it is his primary liability which becomes a vicarious liability of the owner which is to be indemnified by the insurance company. That is why the Hon'ble Apex Court of India in the decision M.A.C.A. 2790 OF 2009 -:2:- reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others (2007 ACJ 1284) posed a question, “Why should not a Tribunal insist on the driver of the vehicle being impleaded when a claim is being filed? As we have noticed, the relevant provision of the Act are not intended to jettison all principles of law relating to a claim for compensation which is still based on a tortious liability.” 4. When the Tribunal felt that the junction of the driver was really necessary for a proper adjudication of the matter it should have directed the claimant to file it but when the claimant filed such an application it is seen that it is dismissed. That is not a proper way to deal with the thing. Therefore I give an opportunity to the claimant to implead the driver for a proper adjudication of the case. In the result the order of dismissal passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal and the claimant is given an opportunity to implead the driver of the vehicle and thereafter the Tribunal is M.A.C.A. 2790 OF 2009 -:3:- directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since I am disposing of the matter at the admission stage itself the claimant is directed to take out notice after he enters appearance before the Tribunal. The appellant is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-