IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 235 of 2006() ---------------------- OPMV.1940/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S):5TH RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOTTAYAM. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & R1 TO R4 & R6 --------------------------------------- 1. BAIJUMON V.T., S/O.THANKAPPAN, VADAKKELKURATHUKUNNEL HOUSE, THELLAKOM P.O., MUDIYOORKARA, PERUMBAICKADU VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM. 2. RAJAN D., S/O.DHANANJAYAN, CHIRAPPURATHU HOUSE, NEAR KAVIKKADU SIRAJ, S/O.SALAVUDEEN, PATHIMATHU HOUSE, S.H.MOUNT P.O., NATTASSERY, KOTTAYAM. 3. SIRAJ, S/O.SALAVUDEEN, PHATHIMATHU HOUSE S..H.MOUNT P.O., NATTASSERY KOTTAYAM. 4. K.C.MATHEW, S/O.CHACKO, KAMBAMKUZHIKAL HOUSE, KEEZHOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM. 5. MANJU SHERIF, VALATHUCHERY, KAMALA MANZIL, PUTHENKADAVU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 6. DIVISIONAL MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE, DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT. ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM FOR R5 SRI.P.SUBAIR KUNJU FOR R5 SRI.V.G.ARUN FOR R2 SRI.P.JAYASANKAR FOR R6 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 31/03/2010, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 406 OF 2006 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= M.A.C.A. Nos. 235 & 406 of 2006 =~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~= Dated this the 31st day of March, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. These two appeals are directed against a common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam in O.P.(MV) Nos. 1940 and 1941 of 1998. 2. The Tribunal found that the claimants were entitled to get compensation of Rs.12,500/- and Rs.11,500/- respectively. The appellant Insurance Company, which had allegedly issued a valid insurance policy in respect of the offending vehicle (bus), was directed to pay the compensation to the claimants. 3. The said award is challenged by the appellant Insurance Company, contending that insurance policy had not been issued by the appellant in respect of the offending vehicle, as alleged by the claimants. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant MACA 235 & 406/06 2 and learned counsel for the second respondent. Though notice has been served on the owner of the offending vehicle, he has not appeared either in person or through counsel. 5. In M.A.C.A.No.235 of 2006 the claimant has accepted notice, but he has not entered appearance either in person or through counsel. In M.A.C.A.No.406 of 2006 notice to respondents 1 to 5 was taken out by paper application. Except the driver of the bus, others have not appeared. 6. The specific case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the offending vehicle was not covered under a valid insurance policy. Though such a specific contention was raised, the owner of the vehicle did not choose to adduce any evidence to controvert the above contention. But still the Tribunal took the view that the Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner. We are of the view that the above conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal is without any justification. MACA 235 & 406/06 3 7. In that view of the matter the impugned award is modified. The direction to the appellant to pay the compensation is set aside. It necessarily follows that the claimant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation only from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The appeals are disposed of as above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. mn.