DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE Vs. NAZIMUDEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P.(MV) 1110/02. The claimant, a policeman, sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling as a pillion rider in the official vehicle. According to him the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the rider of the motorcycle. On the other hand the Department would contend that a motorcar came in a negligent manner and applied sudden break in front of the scooter and as a result of the above abrupt and negligent act the riders in the scooter fell on the road and sustained injuries. The Tribunal quite strangely in a petition u/s 166 of the M.V.Act held that it is sufficient to make the owner liable for damages if the accident had taken place while the scooter was in use. It is against the fundamentals of the provisions narrated under S.166 of the M.V.Act. Had it been a petition u/s 163A the finding of the Tribunal could be correct. Further the documents produced would show that the accident had taken place on account of "......................................................................... ............................................" So it is desirable that evidence is let in so that a finding on negligence is to be given this way or that way. It has also to be found whether it is an inevitable accident so as to exonerate the owner from the liability. Therefore the matter requires reconsideration on that point.

(2.) So far as the policy is concerned the Government had taken up a very strange contention that when an Act only policy exonerates the insurance company the owner also is not liable. I think such an argument cannot be heard at all and it has to be rejected. When it is admitted that it is only an Act only policy the insurance company has to be exonerated from the liability. So I confirm the said finding. Since the matter is going back the question of quantum also be reconsidered.

(3.) Therefore the M.A.C.A. is allowed and the award passed by the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on the aspect of negligence and quantum and for the said purpose both the parties are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Since the claimant has not appeared before this Court let notice be taken by the appellant herein for service before the Tribunal proceeding to dispose of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 2.11.2010.