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 21ST OCTOBER 2010 / 29TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1363 of 2007() ----------------------- (O.P.(MV)NO.758/2003 OF MACT, THRISSUR) APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY THE DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS 1 TO 3 & RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------------------- 1. SURESH, NADUPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.ANTHIKKAD, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. LATHA, W/O SURESH, -DO- 3. MINOR NITHIN LAL, S/O SURESH, -DO- REP. BY HIS FATHER SURESH - 1ST RESPONDENT 4. SUDHIR, S/O RAMU, KOOKAKULANGARA HOUSE, P.O.AYYANTHOLE, KURINAKAL LANE, THRISSUR - 680 003. 5. P.M.VASU, PULLARIKAL HOUSE, P.O.PULLAZHI, THRISSUR - 680 012. ADV. SRI.O.D.SIVADAS FOR R1 TO3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2010 ALONG WITH MACA.NO.1492/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No.1363 OF 2007, 1492 OF 2010 & C.M.Appln.No.1875/ 2010 in M.A.C.A.No.1492/2010 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 21st day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. These two appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment since they arise from the same award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.758/2003. 2. The appellant in M.A.C.A.No.1363/2007 is the insurer of the alleged offending vehicle namely a Stage Carriage bearing Reg.No.KL8/R 5652. The legal heirs of deceased victim of the accident had claimed compensation from the owner, driver and insurer of the vehicle alleging negligence on the part of the driver of the said vehicle. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties passed an award in a sum of Rs. 3,81,300/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the same with 7% interest. 3. The case of the appellant Insurance Company before the MACA.No.1363/2007 2 Tribunal was that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. However, the Tribunal after perusing the relevant pages of the driving licence produced by the driver came to the conclusion that the contention raised by the Insurance company was not sustainable since it was found that the driver had obtained a valid licence. But the Tribunal also observed that from the endorsement in the driving licence, it could be seen that the licence had been renewed only upto July 18, 2002. Admittedly, the accident occurred on November 1, 2002. Thus there was apparent contradiction in the two observations made by the learned Judge. 4. We have perused the records of the Tribunal. A perusal of the relevant pages of Ext.B1 licence produced by the driver will show that the licence was in fact got renewed for three years with effect from July 18, 2002 upto July 18, 2005 vide endorsement No. L2/6598/7/02R dated July 24, 2002. Apparently, this endorsement was not referred to by the learned Judge in the award even though it has been clearly stated that the licence was got renewed by the driver. In that view of the matter the contention raised by the appellant that the driver did not MACA.No.1363/2007 3 possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident cannot be sustained at all. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under various heads would call for interference at the hands of this court. We have perused the award carefully. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not find any reason to interfere with the award. In our view, the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. In that view of the matter, there is no merit in the appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. 6.. M.A.C.A.No.1492/2010 has been filed by the claimants with a delay of 1575 days . The only ground raised is that the contention raised by the Insurance Company in its appeal is wholly baseless in as much as Ext.B1 driving licence produced by the driver will show that it was renewed with effect from July 18, 2002 for a period of three years. 7. In the earlier part of this judgment, we have already found that the licence had been renewed as contended by the driver. We do not deem it necessary to entertain this appeal. There is no proper MACA.No.1363/2007 4 explanation for the delay. For that reason also, the appeal cannot be entertained. Therefore, the delay petition and the appeal are dismissed. Both appeals are dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.No.1363/2007 5