IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 2946 of 2009()
1. JUMAIL, AGED 9 YEARS, S/O. JAMEELA,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. WILSON, AGED 50 YEARS, S/O. ITTANPILLAI
... Respondent
2. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.N.J.ANTONY
For Respondent :SMT.T.C.SOWMIAVATHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :13/09/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 2946 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 13th day of September, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kalpetta in O.P.(MV)1/05. The
claimant, an injured has been awarded a compensation of
Rs.7,200/- and the insurance company has been exonerated
from the liability. Dissatisfied with the same the quantum as
well as exclusion of the insurance company from the liability,
the claimant has come up in appeal. I am afraid the Tribunal
has really not understood the contentions of the parties and
therefore the matter requires reconsideration at its hands.
2. Admittedly the accident had taken place on
29.3.04. The insurance company has contended that the
vehicle was insured at the time of the accident with the
insurance company. But it had raised a contention that the
driver had no badge to drive the vehicle at the time of the
accident.
M.A.C.A. 2946 OF 2009
-:2:-
3. A perusal of paragraph 6 of the award would
reveal that there was a valid policy for the vehicle from
4.6.03 to 3.4.04. Unfortunately the Tribunal exonerated the
insurance company from the liability stating that the
insurance company has denied the insurance and so R2 is
exonerated from the liability. It is absolutely wrong. The
contention raised by the insurance company is to the effect
that the driver did not have a valid badge at the time of the
accident and so there is a breach of policy conditions which
enables the insurance company at least to get a recovery
right from the owner. But unfortunately the Tribunal has
failed to understand the same. So the matter requires
reconsideration. Since the matter requires reconsideration
the question of adequacy of compensation also can be looked
into by the Tribunal by permitting the parties to adduce
evidence. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside
and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a
direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as
well as oral evidence in support of their respective
M.A.C.A. 2946 OF 2009
-:3:-
contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance
with law. Since the owner cum driver has not appeared
before this Court fresh notice be again taken before the
Tribunal and all the parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 29.10.2010.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-