IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH JANUARY 2010 / 16TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 463 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.2835/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOZHIKODE .................... APPELLANT/CLAIMANT: -------------- PRASANTH, S/O.RAVEENDRAN, AGED 31 KANIYAMKANDI THAZHAM HOUSE, KARAPARAMBA POST, KOZHIKKODE. BY ADV. SMT.K.V.RESHMI RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. THE DIRECTOR OF GENERAL OF POLICE KERALA, TRIVANDRUM. 2. KERALA STATE INSURANCE DEPARTMENT WOOD WORKSHOP BUILDING, PUTHIYARA,KOZHIKODE. SR. GOVERNMENT PLEADER , SRI.BENNY VARGHESE FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ---------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 463 OF 2009 ----------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode in O.P.(M.V.) No.2835/2003. The claimant, a police constable, sustained injuries in a road accident while he was travelling in a police jeep and the party was on patrol duty. It appears, it collided with a lorry and the injuries had resulted. To start with the case was registered against the unidentifiable driver and unidentified lorry. Later, nothing could be pursued and that blocked the criminal investigation. Now comes an application for compensation on the ground that the driver of the jeep is negligent. It has to be stated that the driver of the jeep was not even impleaded as a party. When a claim is filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the liability of the owner is only a vicarious liability for the primary negligence of the driver. The Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in a proceeding under Section 166 of the Act, it is always essential to have the driver MACA.No.463/2009 2 on the party array. Secondly, the document produced by him as only against him for the reason that the acquisition is against the lorry driver and the final report was that it was an undetected case. Inspite of this, neither the claimant nor the driver, nor any witnesses had been examined before the Tribunal to establish the negligence of the driver of the jeep. I do not find any error of law or fact committed by the court below in dismissing the claim application. Therefore, the appeal lacks merits and the same is dismissed. (M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE) ps