IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 321 of 2004(D) -------------------------- OPMV.664/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, REGIONAL OFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) SRI.ALEXY AUGUSTINE RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT -------------------------------- SAJIKUMAR, S/O. SREEDHARAN, KUMAR BHAVAN, MAMKALA, NELLIMMOODU P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 321 OF 2004 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara in O.P.(MV)664/00. It is an application filed u/s 163A of the M.V.Act. The claimant was riding a scooter and it met with an accident on account of the skidding of the same. A petition u/s 163A was filed for compensation. The Tribunal did not accept the disability certificate of 15% but accepted it as 7% and calculated the compensation. The Tribunal also held that he was having a military motor vehicle driving licence and therefore insurance company is bound to indemnify. Learned counsel for the insurance company would contend before me that the driver was not justified in fixing the disability at 7% without any basis especially after discarding the disability at 15% assessed by the doctor. Therefore the Tribunal should have either insisted for evidence or referred the person to a Medical Board to get the actual percentage of disability and M.A.C.A. 321 OF 2004 -:2:- then proceed in accordance with law. There appears to be considerable force in the said contention which requires consideration by the Tribunal. Therefore, I feel this is fit case where the claimant can adduce evidence in support of his contentions regarding the disability or he himself can file an application for referring to a Medical Board to ascertain the percentage of disability and then the Tribunal to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. 2. So far as the exoneration of the liability of the insurance company is concerned when a person drives a vehicle without a valid driving licence it is a matter that has to be considered. Recently in the decision reported in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha (2008 (2) TAC 801(SC) the Apex Court had held that a person holding licence to drive one class of vehicle cannot drive another class of vehicle without a proper licence. It is a matter that also requires consideration since the particulars regarding the licence issued by the military is not available before the Tribunal or this Court. Therefore that also can be M.A.C.A. 321 OF 2004 -:3:- reconsidered. So the award under challenge is set aside and it is remitted back for consideration of the points mentioned above. The Tribunal shall permit the claimant as well as the insurance company to adduce evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 22.10.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-