IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 12TH OCTOBER 2010 / 20TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1982 of 2010() ------------------------------------ OPMV.187/2006 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KOLLAM REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JASEENTHA PAPPACHAN, AGED 51 YEARS, D/O.PHILOMINA, MINI BHAVAN, KANJIRACODU P.O., KUNDARA, KOLLAM. 2. RAJU, S/O.DURAI RAJU, THOPPUVILA THAZHATHIL, CHEKOM, PIRAVANTHOOR, PATHANAPURAM. 3. SREEJU, S/O.ANDROOS, SREEJA VILASOM, PADAPPAKARA, NEAR N.S.NAGAR, PADAPPAKARA P.O., PERAYAM CHERRY, MULAVANA VILLAGE, KUNDARA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 12/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1982 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam in O.P. (MV)187/06. The claimant, who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs.46,936/- and the insurance company is directed to pay the amount. It is against that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The learned counsel for the insurance company would contend that a plea has been raised to the effect that the driver did not have a valid badge to drive an auto rickshaw. I am quite surprised to see from the award of the Tribunal that it has simply brushed aside that contention on the ground that there is no exclusion clause in the policy. In all policies it is incorporated that the vehicle should be driven by a duly authorised M.A.C.A. 1982 OF 2010 -:2:- driver and further it is a settled principle that u/s 3 of the M.V.Act a person who is driving a vehicle should have the authority to drive a particular vehicle which he was driving. So these are all fundamental and the approach by the Tribunal does not appear to be correct. Therefore there is no point in inviting all the parties to this Court and so I am inclined to allow the appeal in the admission stage itself. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside without disturbing the quantum and it is remitted back for the purpose of finding out whether the driver did have a valid driving licence to drive an auto rickshaw as contemplated under law and in case of absence whether the insurance company is entitled to get back the amount from the insured. The insurance company on appearance before the trial court shall take out notice to the other parties including the claimant and let the matter be disposed of within 3 months from the date M.A.C.A. 1982 OF 2010 -:3:- of first appearance of the parties. The insurance company is directed to appear before the Tribunal on 15.11.2010. Sd/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/- [true copy] P.A. To Judge.