IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA FRIDAY, THE 28TH MARCH 2008 / 8TH CHAITHRA 1930 MACA.No. 606 of 2008() ---------------------- OPMV.724/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. REGIONAL TOWERS, KANDAMKULATHY TOWERS M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS: 1ST RESPONDENT & PETITIONER ---------------------------------------- 1. BYJUKUMAR, S/O.BHASKARAN IDAVILATH HOUSE, KOLACHERRY AMSOM DESOM KARINKALKUZHI PO 2. ABDUL JALEEL, S/O.AHAMMED PARAMBIL HOUSE, MULLAKKODI P.O. KANNUR (P.A. HOLDER P.AHAMMED, S/O.ABOOBACKER) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/03/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B.Koshy & K. Hema, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 606 of 2008 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 28th day of March, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company against the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV) No.724/2001. Claimant while driving a motor cycle sustained injuries, when an autorickshaw, insured by the appellant, hit the motor cycle. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the autorickshaw and the appellant Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount. It is not disputed that there was valid insurance at the time of accident. The only contention raised by the appellant is that there was no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The fact that the at the time of the accident the driving licence was not renewed and it was subsequently renewed. So, before the accident and after the accident, there was a valid licence. It is not proved by evidence that the accident was occurred in the absence of the renewal of licence at the relevant time. Hence, the burden is on the Insurance Company to prove the same. In a National Insurance Company V. Swaransingh AIR 2004 SC 1531 it was held by the Supreme Court that MACA 606/2008 -2- breach on the part of the insured should be proved by the Insurance Company. The above aspect was considered by the Supreme Court in paragraph 103 of the above decision. In this connection we also refer to a Full Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. V. Paulose (2004(1) KLT 98). Insurance Company failed to establish that the insured committed brach of the policy condition. 2. In the above circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. J.B. Koshy, Judge K. Hema, Judge mn.