IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 1031 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.897/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ATTINGAL .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, ATTINGAL, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI - 16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2. ------------------------------------------------- 1. SOUDA BEEVI, D/O.SAFIYA BEEVI, MUNEER MANZIL, THADATHARIKATHU VEEDU, KAZHAKKOOTAM NOW RESIDING AT M.B.HOUSE, PANGODE P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. JASMINE, D/O.SOUDA BEEVI (MINOR), DO. DO. 3. MUNEER, S/O.ABDUL VAHEED (MINOR), DO. DO. 4. BUNUSHAW B., D/O.ABDUL VAHEED (MINOR), REP: BY HER GUARDIAN ARIFA BEEVI, D/O.FATHIMA BEEVI, BINUSHAW MANZIL, DERISAYKUNNU, CHEKKAKUNNU P.O., AZHIKODU, KARAKULAM VILLAGE. 5. MOHANAN, VALIYANEELATHIL VEEDU, PUTHUKKARY, CHIRAYANKIL P.O. MACA.NO.1031/2004 6. SATHEESH MOHAN, S/O.MOHANAN, DO. DO. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3 ARE REP: BY THEIR GUARDIAN AND MOTHER 1ST RESPONDENT). ADV. SRI.AJAYA KUMAR. G FOR R4 SRI.RAJESH. K.RAJU FOR R2-3 SRI.INNOCENT FRANCIS PAPALI FOR R2-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.1031 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. Appellant is the third respondent Insurance Company in O.P. (MV)No.897/1998 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Attingal. One Abdul Vahid, husband of first claimant and the father of claimants 2 to 4 died in a motor accident which occurred on December 23, 1998 at about 8.45P.M. near Pallippuram on the National Highway. The accident happened while he was walking along the side of the road, he was knocked down by the tempo trax bearing Reg.No.KL 01/K/4753 driven by the second respondent. He sustained serious injuries and he succumbed to the injuries sustained on the same day while undergoing treatment in the hospital. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the driver of the tempo trax, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 8 lakhs. 2. Respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the MACA.No.1031/2004 2 offending tempo trax filed a written statement admitting the accident, but denied the liability. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending tempo trax filed a written statement admitting the policy, but contended that the second respondent had no valid driving licence or badge at the time of the accident. 3. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A9 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. No evidence was adduced by the contesting respondents. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 5,27,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation from respondents 1 to 3. The third respondent Insurance Company has now come up in appeal contending that the second respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence or badge at the time of the accident and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 4. Heard counsel for the Insurance Company and the counsel MACA.No.1031/2004 3 for the respondents. 5. The only question which arises for consideration is whether the finding of the Tribunal that the second respondent, the driver of the offending vehicle, had no valid driving licence and badge at the time of the accident can be sustained. 6. It is true that inspite of the notice issued from the Tribunal, the second respondent did not produce his driving licence. But Ext.A7, the copy of the police charge shows the number of his driving licence which is valid from December 5, 1997 to December 4, 2017 and that a direction was given to the Thiruvananthapuram RTA to suspend it for a particular period. The third respondent Insurance Company has not cared to produce the copy of the said driving licence or to show that second respondent was disqualified from holding or obtaining any licence at the time of the accident. That being so, the Tribunal is perfectly justified in finding that the the second respondent, the driver of the offeding vehicle, had a valid driving licence and badge at the time of the accident and holding that the appellant Insurance Company is liable to indemnify respondents 1 and 2, the owner and driver of the MACA.No.1031/2004 4 offending vehicle, in the O.P. No other contention is raised before us. Therefore, the appeal has to be dismissed. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1031/2004 5