IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2009 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 664 of 2009() ---------------------- O.P.(M.V.)NO.35/06 OF THE M.A.C.A, ALAPPUZHA APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- AHAMMED AL SHAMNAD S/O. UMMERKUTTY MUSALIYAR, 132, PURACKAL, PURAKKAD, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 --------------------------------------------- 1. BHAKTHAVALSALAN NAIR S/O. ANDI PILLAI, KUMARAMANGALAM, VALANJAVAZHI, ALAPPUZHA. 2. SUMESH S/O. SURENDRAN, VRIKSHAVILASAMTHOPPU, VANDANAM P.O., WARD NO.1, AMBALAPPUZHA NORTH PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA-5. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., NELLAYI COMPLEX, ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * M.A.C.A.No.664 of 2009 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 24th day of March 2009 J U D G M E N T BASANT,J The appellant herein is the second respondent/owner of a two wheeler involved in a motor accident which took place on 08/11/2005. That vehicle was being driven by the 1st respondent in the O.P. It met with an accident and the claimant suffered injuries. Both the appellant and the driver of the vehicle remained ex parte. The driver of the vehicle did not admittedly have a driving licence on the date of the accident. The tribunal, on the basis of the evidence available, proceeded to pass the impugned award directing payment of compensation to the claimant. The insurer was directed to pay the amount; but was permitted to recover the amount from the appellant herein. 2. The appellant has now come before this court with this appeal against the direction in favour of the insurer that the insurer can recover the amount paid to discharge the liability under the impugned award from the appellant herein. M.A.C.A.No.664/09 2 3. Called upon to explain the nature of challenge which the the appellant wants to mount against the impugned award, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mere fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident is not a reason for the tribunal to issue such a direction enabling the insurer to pay the amount to the claimant and recover the same from the owner/insured. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1)KLT 781] to contend that mere absence of a valid driving licence cannot ipso facto lead to such a direction in favour of the insurance company. 4. What is the contention that the appellant wants to raise? The short contention before us is that an indulgent further opportunity may be granted to the appellant to advance his contentions. Pointedly asked to explain the nature of contentions to prove which the appellant clamours for a further opportunity, the learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant wants to raise a plea that the appellant had nothing to do with the driver/rider of the vehicle and such driver/rider of M.A.C.A.No.664/09 3 the vehicle (a total stranger) had taken away the vehicle without the consent of the appellant. Till this day, no action has been taken by the appellant consistent with such a weird theory. We are not satisfied, in the facts and circumstances of this case, that the appellant deserves to be granted the luxury of a further opportunity by remand to advance and substantiate such a totally improbable contention. We are satisfied that this appeal does not in these circumstances merit admission. 4. This appeal is accordingly dismissed as in limine. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE) jsr M.A.C.A.No.664/09 4 M.A.C.A.No.664/09 5 R.BASANT &C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 06/02/2009