AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.N. Krishnan, J.—This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in OP(MV) No. 1254/2005. The passenger in a private car is alleged to have sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has rejected his claim on the ground that the policy does not cover the risk of a private passenger and that the owner and driver being the relatives of the claimant, there is collusion and so the claimant is not entitled to any compensation.
In a private vehicle normally only relatives will travel. Private vehicle is intended for that as well. Therefore the court cannot jump to the conclusion that owner and driver being the close relatives, the claimant cannot be given compensation for the fear of collusion between the parties. Further I am informed that the vehicle is covered by a package policy. If it is so, by virtue of the clarificatory circular issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority dated 16.11.2009 the passengers carried in a private vehicle are covered under the terms and conditions of the standard motor package policy. That also has to be taken into consideration. Anyhow the claimant can succeed only if he establishes that there is negligence on the part of the driver and that they had sustained injuries. So I feel an opportunity has to be given.
Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.12.2010.
Disposed of accordingly.