IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 18TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 27TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1315 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.176/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2: ----------------------------------------------- 1. JANAKI, W/O. K.SUNDARAN, LAKSHMI, MALAYAMKONAM, VATTAPPARA P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. 2. ALIKUNJU, S/O. VAPPUKANNU, SHAJIMA MANZIL, PEZHUMMOODU, KUTTICHAL P.O., KATTAKKADA VIA., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DIST. 3. SREEKUMAR, S/O. VISWAMBARAN NAIR, DIVIYA BHAVAN, VILAYIL, PANTHALKKODE, VATTAPPARA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-28. ADV. SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN FOR R1 SRI.SAIJO HASSAN FOR R1 SRI.A.S.SABU SREEDHARAN FOR R1 SRI.P.BANI SRI.R.ANILKUMAR FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/11/2009, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1399 OF 2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No. 1315 OF 2004 & M.A.C.A.No.1399 OF 2004 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Attingal in OP(MV)Nos.181/1999 and 176/1999. The appellant before this Court, the United India Insurance Company, has challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the driver did have the valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The rider of the vehicle admittedly is a military personnel. He was riding a motor bike and it is not stated whether it was a departmental vehicle or a private vehicle. The documents produced in the case would show that the department has authorised him to drive the motor vehicle or scooter with effect from 15th September, 1998. The learned counsel for the rider has shown me a military motor vehicles driving licence. The caption itself is military driving licence and it is specifically mentioned that not valid for driving any mechanically propelled vehicles for private purpose other than amenity purposes as provided in : 2 : M.A.C.A.No. 1315 OF 2004 & M.A.C.A.No.1399 OF 2004 A.Is/A.Os. What is meant by that, has to be explained. Whether a military personnel can drive his private vehicle with this licence is the matter that requires consideration and whether an authorisation by the military is sufficient has also to be considered in the light of Section 18(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act. As pointed out by the learned counsel for the insurance company, the vehicle appears to be a private vehicle and what is meant for the amenity purposes are matters which require some explanation to find out regarding the authority of a person to drive the vehicle. But, it has not been considered in that angle by the Tribunal and therefore, the matter requires reconsideration for that reason and that it requires some additional evidence as well. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the right for recovery is concerned and the finding on that account is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit the rider cum owner as well as the insurance company to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support : 3 : M.A.C.A.No. 1315 OF 2004 & M.A.C.A.No.1399 OF 2004 of their respective contentions. Since the claimant is to be paid by the insurance company, their presence need not be insisted for the disposal of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl