IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MFA.No. 326 of 2003()
1. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. K.J.CHINNAMMA,
... Respondent
2. RADHAS MON (MINOR),
3. K.RAGHAVAN NAIR,
4. P.I. HABEED MOHAMMED,
5. LESLIE M.JOSEPH, S/O. DR.J.MUTHIAH,
6. THE MANAGER,
7. ABDUL JABAR, S/O. MOHAMMED KANNU,
8. BINU K.THOMAS, S/O. THOMAS,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.R.LAKSHMI NARAYAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN
Dated :11/07/2008
O R D E R
J.B. Koshy & V.K.Mohanan, JJ.
————————————–
M.F.A. No. 326 of 2003
—————————————
Dated this the 11th day of July, 2008
Judgment
Koshy,J.
Respondents 1 to 3 filed an application for compensation
contending that husband of the first respondent sustained fatal
injuries in an accident on 4.2.1989. The tribunal found that two
motor cycles were involved in the accident and the accident
occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle insured
by the appellant insurance company. It is the contention of the
appellant that it was not insured by the appellant insurance
company. Case was originally pending before the Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. Meanwhile, when M.A.C.T., Pala was
constituted, it was transferred to Pala. The case was numbered in
1995. The advocate died on 28.5.1996. His son was a lawyer in the
panel and he continued to take case, but, in this case, no report was
filed and, therefore, his contentions were not taken note off. An I.A,
was filed to set aside the exparte order in the delay condonation
petition. That was also dismissed on 19.9.2002. Thereafter, this
appeal was filed.
M.F.A.No. 326/2003 2
2. It is the contention of the claimant that they became
hapless because the only earning member in the family died in the
accident. Only a paltry amount was granted by the tribunal. Even
that amount was not paid to the claimants. The policy number was
also mentioned in the petition to set aside the exparte order and
there was no specific denial thereafter. Even this order was stayed.
The plea of the insurance company is belated and, in any event,
even though the accident happened about two decades ago, the
contention of the insurance company cannot be allowed. The
contention of the owner of the vehicle is that they sold the vehicle
three years ago. The vehicle was insured at the time of the
accident. At this distance of time, it will be very difficult to furnish
the defects. But, the owner of the vehicle had notice of the accident
and if his vehicle was having insurance policy, he should have
produced the policy before the tribunal. However, the claimants
cannot suffer. In these circumstances, considering the contentions
and facts of this case, we directed the insurance company to deposit
the entire amount and claimants are allowed to withdraw the same.
But, the matter is remanded to the tribunal and if the insurance
company is able to prove the contention that there was no
insurance for the vehicle at that time, the insurance company is
M.F.A.No. 326/2003 3
entitled to get the amount reimbursed from the owner of the
vehicle. The parties may appear before the tribunal on 22.9.2008.
The matter should be disposed of by the tribunal within four months
from the date of this judgment. Since the amount is deposited, the
claimants are allowed to withdraw the same.
J.B.Koshy
Judge
V.K. Mohanan
Judge
vaa
M.F.A.No. 326/2003 4
J.B. KOSHY
AND
P.N.RAVINDRAN,JJ.
————————————-
M.F.A. No. 326 of 2003
————————————-
Judgment
Dated:11th July, 2008