IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 19TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 28TH KARTHIKA 1931 MACA.No. 1347 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.733/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/IST RESPONDENT IN OPMV 733/97. ------------------------------------------------------ THOMAS, S/O.ALEXANDER, UPPUMACKAL HOUSE, KANJIKUZHY P.O. KANJIKUZHY, IDUKKI. BY ADV. SRI.JOY THATTIL ITTOOP RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER, MOOVATTUPPUZHA. 2. SAJIV, S/O.SREEDHARAN, MARIYIL HOUSE, UPPUTHODU KARA. 3. BINU KUMAR, S/O.KUMARAN, PERUMKUNNATHU HOUSE, KANJIKKUZHY KARA. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1347 OF 2005 ............................................. Dated this the 19th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in OP(MV)No.733/1997. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.16,200/= and since the driver did not possess the valid driving licence to drive the vehicle involved in the case, the right to recover was granted in favour of the insurance company. It is against that decision, the owner has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. Along with the Memorandum of Appeal, the learned counsel has produced Annexures A,B and C and Annexure C relates to the driving licence particulars of the driver. On a scrutiny of the same, it appears that there is something to be considered by the Tribunal to find out whether there was an effective valid driving licence on the date of the accident namely 27.1.1995. It has to be stated that the vehicle involved in the case is a taxi jeep. So, it is a : 2 : passenger carrying vehicle which comes under the definition of transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Then relying upon Sections 3 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act a person is said to be duly licenced only when he has got the authority to drive a particular jeep or vehicle which he is driving and there must be necessary endorsement to that effect in the licence issued to him under the statutory provisions. Now it has been made clear by the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir [(2008 (3) TAC 20(SC)]. Now since the matters require factual consideration and evidence, permission be granted to the owner to produce documents in support of his contentions regarding the licence and the insurance company also be permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 17.12.2009. Till a final decision is taken in the matter, let the revenue recovery : 3 : proceedings be kept in abeyance. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 :