IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 860 of 2008() -------------------------------- OPMV.3047/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM ...................................................................................................................................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, REGIONAL MANAGER, COCHIN-35, REP.BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B.NO.3235, OMANA BUILDINGS, JEWS STREET, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI - 682 035. BY ADV. SRI.LAL GEORGE RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------ 1. T.A.AISHU, D/O.ABOOBACKER, PATTERIPARAMBIL HOUSE, GLASS FACTORY COLONY, KALAMASSERY. 2. BAIJU, S/O.KANNANKOTTANKEERI, SHORICKAL HOUSE, IX/249, NEDUMBASSERY. 3. BABU, S/O.GOPALAN, KALAVANPARAMBIL HOUSE, DESOM-KARA, CHENGAMAND VILLAGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J --------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. NO. 860 OF 2008 -------------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(M.V) No.3047 of 1999. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.38,600/- and directed the Insurance Company to deposit the amount. It is against the same the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. The learned counsel would contended before me that though the Insurance Company has specifically raised a contention to the effect that the second respondent in the OP(MV) did not have valid driving licence at the time of accident, the Tribunal did not consider that point at all. The learned counsel had referred to the memorandum of appeal wherein it is stated that an application has been moved for the production of the driving licence. But it has not been considered by the Tribunal. So it is very clear that a point which the Tribunal, should have considered is omitted to be considered and therefore, the matter requires re-consideration on that point. In the result, the M.A.C.A is partly allowed and the finding with M.A.C.A. NO. 860 OF 2008 2 respect to the interse liability between the Insurance Company and the owner is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to consider the question whether the Insurance Company is entitled to get an order of reimbursement from the owner or exoneration from the total liability. For the said purpose parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Insurance Company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 13.11.2009 and thereafter take steps to serve the owner once more so that the matter can be decided in his presence. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. pm M.A.C.A. NO. 860 OF 2008 3 M.A.C.A. NO. 860 OF 2008 4