Ramachandran Nair, J.
Both these appeals arise from the award in O.P.No.1492/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. The appellants in M.A.C.A.No.649/2013 are respectively the respondents 2 and 3 before the Tribunal. They are the District Collector, Alappuzha and State of Kerala. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.2412/2008 is the claimant before the Tribunal. The accident occurred on 11.05.2002 at about 3 p.m. when the claimant was travelling as a pillion rider in the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KL-4 K/7994 through Alappuzha Medical College Hospital to District Hospital road. The offending vehicle is a jeep bearing Reg.No.KL 4 D/6136 which was coming from the collectorate side and the claimant fell down after the vehicle hit on the motor cycle. As per the award the claimant is allowed to realise a sum of `87,500/-
with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till reaslization.
2. It is a case where the Insurance Company of the offending vehicle was not impleaded before the Tribunal. One of the main grounds raised in M.A.C.A.No.649/2013 is that the vehicle was validly insured with the United India Insurance Company Ltd ( additional third respondent in the appeal) and Annexure 1 is stated to be the certificate of insurance.
3. We heard the learned Government Pleader for the appellant in M.A.C.A.No.649/2013 and Smt.Bindu C.G., the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant in M.A.C.A.No.2412/2008 and Sri.P.V.Jyothi Prasad, the learned counsel for the insurer.
4. In fact this Court while considering the matter had directed the learned counsel for the Insurance company, namely the additional third respondent in M.A.C.A.No.649/2013 to verify as to the whether they are admitting the policy.
5. A statement was filed on 4.11.2014 mentioning that the policy differs and therefore there should be proper adjudication for which the case has to be remanded back. Thereafter the appellants in M.A.C.A.No.649/2013 filed a petition stating that a mistake has occurred in stating the correct number of the vehicle and I.A.No.3727/2014 is filed to correct the appeal memorandum and grounds C, D and H. It is pointed out that the vehicle involved in the accident is Reg.No.KL 4 D/6136 instead of Reg.No.KL 4 /6136. We have allowed the application today by a separate order. Annexure 1 policy mentions the number of the vehicle as Reg.No.KL 4 D/6136 and the vehicle is a Mahindra Jeep.
6. The learned counsel for the claimant relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Shila Datta (2011 (4) KLT 378 (SC) and submitted that there need not
be a remand of the matter to the Tribunal since it is an old matter and since the policy has been produced before this Court.
7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the company was not a party before the Tribunal and therefore they have got a right to file written statement and take whatever contentions legally permissible.
8. We are of the view that in the light of the fact that the Insurance Company was not impleaded before the Tribunal, it is only proper that an opportunity is given to them. The learned counsel for the claimant expressed a concern that if the award is set aside by this court,the claimant will have to adduce evidence before the Tribunal again. We direct the Tribunal to keep in tact the evidence already adduced by the claimant before the Tribunal. If the presence of the claimant is required, the Insurance Company will file appropriate application since it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant is now residing in north India along with his brother who is in army. Therefore, only if his presence is required, he need be examined.
9. Since enhancement of compensation is also sought for in M.A.C.A.No.2412/2008, all questions will be considered by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the judgment under appeal is set aside and the matter is remanded for consideration afresh by the Tribunal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that since AMVI report and the scene mahazer did not contain the details of the policy, the claimant could not make the Insurance Company a party. We suo motu implead the additional fourth respondent herein in M.A.C.A.No.24121/2008 as the additional fourth respondent in O.P. (MV)No.1492/2002 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha. For appearance of parties, post on 22/01/2015 before the Tribunal and the parties can appear through counsel. Every effort will be taken by the Tribunal to dispose of the matter finally within four months from the said date. The learned counsel for the claimant will furnish a copy of the claim petition to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. No costs.
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE P.V.ASHA, JUDGE sv.