IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1802 of 2008()
1. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SALEESH, S/O THARAYIL CHANDRAN, POST
... Respondent
2. PAULSON,S/O LONAPPAN, CHERTHALAN
3. PAUL, S/O LONAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/08/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. No. 1802 OF 2008
= = = = = = = = == =
DATED THIS, THE 17TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is a appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda, in O.P.(MV) 631/2001.
2. The claimant, employed in a brick factory, while standing on the
road side, was hit by a motor cycle bearing Reg. No. KL 8 K 9669 driven by
the second respondent. The learned Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 48,088/-
and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. This appeal is filed
by the Insurance Company, challenging the finding regarding the existence
of a valid policy. It is submitted that the policy was issued with respect to
Vehicle No. KL 8 K 9662 and it is contended by the Insurance Company
that it is a good vehicle having a seating capacity of three passengers and
valid from 11.12.1999 to 10.12.2000. The policy is issued in the name of
one Mr. K.K. Shaji. Now we find from the records available here that the
owner of the vehicle is one Paulson and there was a policy issued by the
National Insurance Company, which was valid up to 18.12.2001. The said
policy is not forthcoming in this case. So the question is whether the policy
issued relates to the motor cycle involved in the accident or the goods
MACA 1802/2008 2
vehicle. It can easily be found because the chassis number, engine number
etc. are available in the copy of the policy. If it can be connected with the
particular vehicle, then there will be the end of it and the court can find the
fact that whether there was a valid policy or not. Similarly, a chance can be
taken to summon the owner also, so that he can be directed to produce the
registration certificate as well as the insurance policy. Therefore, the matter
requires reconsideration.
3. The award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted
back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to adduce all
oral evidence as well as documentary evidence in support of their
contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law.
The parties are directed to appear before the court below on
24.9.2010.
M.N. KRISHNAN,
(JUDGE)
KNC/-