IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1078 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.65/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ----------------------------------------- 1. KAITHAKATH ABOOBACKER, S/O. MOHAMMEDKUTTY, KANDANATH HOUSE, P.O. VELIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. KAITHAKATH ABDUL REHEEM, S/O. MOHAMEDKUTTY, KANDANATH HOUSE, P.O. VELLIMUKKU SOUTH, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.AUGUSTINE JOSEPH SRI.P.K.MOHAMED JAMEEL RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 3 & 4: --------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ULLATT SULAIKA, W/O. ULLATT ABDUL SALAM, ULLATT HOUSE, MOONIYUR P.O., THIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM. 2. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, CALICUT, INSURER POLCY NO.570305/31/63/93/94/0368. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., PONDI AUTOMOBILE BUILDING, POST BOX NO.11, UP HILL, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R2 SMT.AYSWARYA.N. FOR R2 SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 29/05/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1078 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in OP(MV) 65/98. The principal question that arises for consideration in the appeal is regarding the possession of a licence by the driver. In the trial court the owner and driver did not prosecute the matter and no written statement was filed. So the Tribunal on the contention of the Insurance Company held that the Insurance Company is entitled to reimbursement of the amount from respondents 1 and 2. The question can be limited only on the question of liability of the Insurance Company without disturbing the other findings. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants had made available before me a copy of the driving licence of the driver Abdul Rahim K.K., which is having a validity from 7.12.94 to 16.12.94. The licence to drive a transport vehicle is valid from 18.9.95 to 17.9.98. So the question whether there is a driving licence at all and whether there is a valid badge and further whether a badge is necessary so MACA No. 1078/04 2 as to mulct the liability with the Insurance Company are all matters which requires consideration. The learned counsel would submit that an opportunity is to be given to his clients to file written statement, to produce necessary documents and to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Therefore, the MACA is partly allowed and the matter is remitted back for the limited purpose of arriving at a decision whether there was a valid driving licence as contemplated under the Act and whether the Insurance Company could be exonerated from the liability. For the said purpose the appellants are permitted to file written statement before the Tribunal, produce documents and adduce. The Insurance Company is also permitted to file written statement if any required and also produce documents and adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 10.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps