IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 2350 of 2007() ----------------------- OPMV.1085/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, 3RD PARTY WING, OMANA BUILDING, PADMA JUNCTION, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND 1ST RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------ 1. JAYAN, S/O NARAYANAN, VAKAYIL HOUSE, VALAVOOR P.O.,& KARA, VALLICHIRA VILLAGE. 2. M.K.SASEENDRAN, KURUMKANAYIL, VALAVOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM DIST. BY ADV. SRI.S.PRASANTH FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 2350/07 ORDER ON IA No. 3094/07 IN MACA No.2350/07 DISMISSED 1.9.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 2350 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala, in OP(MV) 1085/03. Aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had brought to my notice para 8 of the award. As per the decision reported in para 8 it was held that “petitioner being the pillion rider, is not covered by the policy and therefore, the Insurance Company has no liability. Issue is answered in favour of the 2nd respondent.” It was on this basis, the liability was cast on the 1st respondent to start with. Subsequently, I find that the word 1st respondent is corrected as 2nd respondent as per an order of review in IA 352/07. So far as the finding with issue No.2 remains there, the Tribunal cannot affix the liability on the Insurance Company without reviewing that portion of the award. From the award produced it is not seen. Therefore, I feel this is a matter that requires reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal. MACA No. 2350/07 2 The award under challenge is set aside, so far as it relates to the inter se liability between the owner and the Insurance Company is concerned, and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to consider it afresh after permitting both sides to make their submissions. Since I am not having a copy of the order in the review petition, this court is unable to understand what is meant by the same. I make it clear that the Tribunal can enter into a fresh decision taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 20.10.08. The Insurance Company can take notice to the owner of the vehicle after entering appearance before the Tribunal. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 2350/07 3