The 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV) No.506/2012 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode has come up in appeal by challenging the award dated 08.03.2013, passed by the Tribunal.
2. The 1st respondent has suffered a motor vehicle accident while she was walking through the road as she was knocked down by a motorbike being owned and ridden by the 2nd respondent herein on 30.01.2012. The learned Tribunal has observed that no written statement was filed by the present appellant in the case. Even though Ext.A3 final report reveals that there was a charge against the 2nd respondent herein under Section 3(1) read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal took the view that no permission need be granted to the insurer to pay the amount awarded and to recover it from the 2nd respondent herein as the insurer has failed to file a written statement to prove the policy conditions.
3. The first respondent herein is also dissatisfied with the quantum fixed by the Tribunal on the head of disability. It seems that Ext.A6 disability certificate was produced in which 25% disability was assessed; whereas the Tribunal had considered the disability to the tune of 5% only. According to the learned counsel for the 1st respondent who has filed the cross objection in the matter, compensation ought to have been granted by considering the disability at 25%. Over and above it, it has also been complained that even though the 1st respondent was a cook, her monthly income was considered as Rs.3,000/- only by the Tribunal. It is contended that the Tribunal ought to have considered her monthly income at least at Rs.4,500/- per month. The 1st respondent is challenging the inadequacy of compensation on all other heads also.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that on 31.10.2012, i.e., within two posting dates, the appellant, insurance company had filed a written statement before the Tribunal. Even though the award was passed on 08.03.2013 only, the Tribunal had erroneously taken a view that no written statement was filed by the insurance company.
5. Considering all the above, this Court is of the view that the question relating to the principle of 'pay and recovery' by the appellant has to be decided afresh after taking evidence in the matter by the Tribunal. Over and above it, when there is a serious challenge in the cross objection filed by the 1st respondent regarding the inadequacy of compensation under all the heads, the entire matter has to be reconsidered by the Tribunal afresh, for which the matter has to go back to the Tribunal.
In the result, this appeal as well as the cross objection are allowed and the impugned award is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh disposal in accordance with law. The parties are at liberty to adduce any fresh or further evidence. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 17.07.2014.
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE ul/-