IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 267 of 2007()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. JAYAN, S/O.SANKARAN,
... Respondent
2. GOPI.K.S., KURULI HOUSE,
3. P.A.PRAKASAN, S/O.AYYAPPAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.P.V.CHANDRA MOHAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :08/01/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 267 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 8th day of January, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)3555/00. The
claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while he was
riding as a pillion rider in a motorcycle. The original owner of
the vehicle is the first respondent in the O.P. He had
transferred the vehicle in favour of the 3rd respondent in the
O.P. and during the pendency of the appeal it appears that
the 3rd respondent died and his legal representative has been
impleaded as R4. Now the question for consideration is that
whether there was a valid coverage for the pillion rider in the
case. In paragraph 6 of the written statement the insurance
company has specifically contended that the policy issued for
R1 is an Act only policy which will not cover the risk of a
pillion rider and hence the 2nd respondent is not liable to
indemnify the claim of the petitioner. So the specific
contention of the insurance company is to the effect that
M.A.C.A. 267 OF 2007
-:2:-
being an Act only policy a pillion rider is not covered.
Unfortunately the Tribunal did not raise the issue on that
point in order to consider that point to arrive at a decision.
So the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the
Tribunal. It is true that the Tribunal has already found that
the rider did not have a valid driving licence and therefore
right to recovery against 3rd respondent in the O.P. is
granted. But if there is no coverage then that question may
not arise at all. Since the additional 4th respondent is
impleaded after the death of R3 in claim petition and as the
3rd respondent, he has not entered appearance before this
Court, the insurance company is directed to take out notice
to him and let the matter be heard in accordance with law.
Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it
relates to the liability between the 2nd and 3rd respondent in
the O.P. are concerned and for that purpose let the parties
be permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral
evidence in support of their respective contentions. Let the
insurance company take out notice to the additional 4th
M.A.C.A. 267 OF 2007
-:3:-
respondent for a proper disposal of the matter. Parties are
directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.2.2010.
It is made clear that the presence of the first
respondent in the O.P. need not be insisted as he has already
transferred the vehicle.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-