IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS THURSDAY, THE 20TH AUGUST 2009 / 29TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 2146 of 2008(A) ----------------------- (Against O.P. (M.V) 809 of 1996 of MACAT, Perumbavoor) APPELLANT(S): -------------- 1. P.K.GOPALAN NAIR S/O.NARAYAN, KIZHAKKEDATH HOUSE PUTHENCRUZ P.O., 682 308 2. SHIBU,S/O. ANTONY CHULLIYATT VEMBILLY VEETTIL, KIZHAKKAMBALAM PIN 683 562. BY ADV. SRI.V.RAJENDRAN (PERUMBAVOOR) SRI. GEORGE VARGHESE KIZHAKKAMBALAM RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. YESUDAS, S/O. UMMANI THIYAMPARAMBU, EATHALA.P.O. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD MOTOR 3RD PARTY CLAIMS DEPARTMENT REGIONAL OFFICE, MUTHOOT TOWERS, KOCHI-35. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. NO: 2146 OF 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 20th Day of August, 2009. JUDGMENT K. M. Joseph J. The appellants are the owner and driver of the vehicle, which is found to be driven negligently. The appeal is filed, aggrieved by the direction of the Tribunal reserving the liberty to the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellants. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. 3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Insurance Company was permitted to recover the amount of compensation from the appellants for the reason that, it is found by the Tribunal that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the M.A.C.A . NO: 2146 OF 2008 :2: driving license, at the time of accident. According to the appellants, the driver had the license. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants, that a copy of the license is produced and the original was shown to the learned counsel for the Insurance Company. In the light of fact, there is a definite case for the appellants, that the driver has a valid license and they have also produced a copy of the license along with Ext.A3, which is a certificate indicating that there is a license issued in the name of the second appellant, we feel that the matter has to be reconsidered. Accordingly this appeal is allowed in part and the matter is remanded back to the Tribunal only for the purpose of reconsidering the liberty reserved to the Insurance company second respondent, to recover the amount from the appellants. The award to that extent is set aside. We make it clear that, we are not interfering with the finding of negligence and M.A.C.A . NO: 2146 OF 2008 :3: determination of quantum of compensation. In fact, the Insurance company has already made payment to the claimant. The parties will appear before the Tribunal on 25.9.09. The parties are at liberty to produce evidence for deciding the question as to whether there is a valid license in favour of the second respondent. K. M. JOSEPH, JUDGE M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE dl/