IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2631 of 2009()
1. NASSEER, S/O. HYDROSE,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. NIYAS, S/O. MUHAMEDALI, AGED 25 YEARS,
... Respondent
2. NIYAS,S/O. SAIDU MUHAMMED
3. UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.V.S.CHANDRASEKHARAN
For Respondent :SMT.S.JAYASREE
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :10/12/2009
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2631 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 10th day of December, 2009.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)347/06.
This case along with another case was tried jointly and the
claimant herein was awarded a compensation of Rs.39,620/-
and respondents were jointly and severally directed to pay
the amount and it was further held that since there is no
evidence of any fitness certificate for the lorry the insurance
company is entitled to recover it from the owner of the
vehicle on satisfaction of the award. It is against that
decision the first respondent, namely the owner has come up
in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well
as counsel for the respondent, Insurance Company,
Smt.Jayasree. It is true that the respondents 1 and 2 in the
Court below had not entered appearance at all and in spite of
notice they did not produce the fitness certificate as well.
M.A.C.A. 2631 OF 2009
-:2:-
Now it is contended that he had transferred the vehicle in
favour of one Hamsa and secondly that there was a valid
fitness certificate for the vehicle from 4.7.05 to 3.7.06 and
photocopy of the agreement of sale and the document issued
as a fitness certificate is made available before me for
perusal. If the fitness certificate is correct then it appears
that on the date of accident there was a valid fitness
certificate for the vehicle. But these are all matters which
has to be proved in accordance with law. Therefore I am
inclined to grant an opportunity to the owner to file a written
statement, to produce documents and adduce evidence in
support of his contentions.
3. Needless to say the insurance company is also
permitted to file additional written statement, if any, and
produce documents in support of its contentions and
thereafter let the matter be decided in accordance with law.
4. The junction of the claimant need not be insisted
for the reason that the insurance company is directed to pay
and get it reimbursed. Since the matter requires
M.A.C.A. 2631 OF 2009
-:3:-
reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal further
proceedings of reimbursement from the owner shall be kept
in abeyance till a final decision is taken in the matter.
Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on
14.1.2010.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-