IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 14TH JANUARY 2011 / 24TH POUSHA 1932 MACA.No. 2329 of 2007 ------------------------------- OPMV.35/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, MUVATTUPUZHA NOW REP. BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PALACE, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: 1. JINSE, S/O. JOSE, THEKKADASSERIL HOUSE, AMANAKARA KARA, RAMAPURAM VILLAGE, MEENACHIL TALUK. 2. JOMON JOSE, S/O. JOSE, -DO- -DO-. (NO RELIEFS ARE CLAIMED AGAINST THE PETITIONER AND HENCE HE IS NOT MADE A PARTY IN THIS APPEAL). BY ADV. SRI.P.RAMAKRISHNAN FOR R.2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/01/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - MACA.No. 2329 of 2007 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 14th day of January, 2011 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant is the insurer of a vehicle (Autorickshaw) bearing registration No.KL 5 L 3595 which was involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on November 22, 2003. Respondents herein are the driver and owner of the said vehicle. 2. The case of the insured-claimant before the Tribunal was that the above vehicle, which was being driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver, dashed against his two wheeler while he was riding it. He was knocked down from his vehicle and had sustained injuries. 3. The Tribunal after considering the documentary evidence adduced by the parties, awarded a total sum of Rs.1,63,630/- as compensation to the claimant and directed the appellant/Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the auto rickshaw who is respondent No.2 in this appeal. 4. Admittedly respondent No.1 herein was driving the auto at the time of the accident. The specific case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence and badge to drive an autorickshaw, which is a transport vehicle. Respondents herein had produced Ext.B1 copy of the driving MACA.No. 2329/2007. : : licence issued in favour of respondent No.1. However since it was noticed from Ext.B1 licence that respondent No.1 did not possess a valid licence to drive a transport vehicle on the day of the accident, the appellant/Insurance Company had filed IA.No.481/2006 before the Tribunal praying for a direction to respondent No.1 to produce the badge and licence which authorised him to drive such a vehicle. But there was no response from respondent No.1. In spite of all this, the Tribunal proceeded to hold that the appellant/Insurance Company was liable to indemnify the owner of the offending vehicle. The above award is under challenge in this appeal. 5. The only prayer in the appeal is that the appellant may be granted liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 6. Ext.B1 licence will show that respondent No.1 was issued a licence to drive non transport vehicle with effect from July 22, 2010. This licence had validity upto 2020. This licence will further show that respondent No.1 was authorised to drive a transport vehicle only with effect from September 13, 2006. As has been noticed already, the accident occurred on November 22, 2003. In other words, respondent No.1 did not possess a valid driving licence authorising him to drive a transport vehicle on the date of the accident. Still further, there was nothing on record to show that respondent No.1 was issued a badge to MACA.No. 2329/2007. : : drive a transport vehicle on the date of the accident. 7. Curiously, the case of respondent No.2, the registered owner, was that he had entrusted the vehicle to one Martin Jose who possessed a valid licence and badge. But, he contended that respondent No.1 happened to drive the vehicle without his permission. Strangely, this contention has been accepted by the Tribunal and it has been held that the registered owner cannot be held to have violated any of the policy conditions. This finding cannot be sustained at all. The Tribunal, in our view, ought to have granted liberty to the appellant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, since obviously there was violation of the policy conditions. 8. Therefore the impugned award is modified to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to recover the amount of compensation from the respondents herein. Appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.