IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 29TH MAY 2008 / 8TH JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1456 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.710/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., TRIVANDRUM,REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE,ERNAKULAM NORTH,KOCHI -18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 : ----------------------------------------- 1. S.SUNILKUMAR,SUNITHA NIVAS, PULAMON P.O.,KOTTARAKKARA. 2. SAJIKUMAR @ SAJI, KUMAR BHAVAN,NEAR MANKALA SREE KRISHNACOIL, NELLIMOODU,VENPAKAL P.O.,NEYYATTINKARA. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) FOR R1 SRI.P.SREEKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.V.SHYAM PRAKASH FOR R1 SRI.S.JAYACHANDRAN (ULIYAKKOVIL) FOR R1 SRI.PIRAPPANCODE V.S.SUDHIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/05/2008 ALONG WITH MACA No. 386/2004, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. Nos. 1456 & 386 OF 2004 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of May, 2008 JUDGMENT M.A.C.A. No.1456/04 is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in OP(MV) No.710/00. M.A.C.A. No.386/04 is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in OP(MV) No.663/00. These two appeals are preferred on the question of liability of the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner and the entitlement of the 2nd respondent namely Sri. Sajikumar to have compensation under Section 163A of the Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal found that the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner and rejected the contention that the rider of the scooter did not possess a valid driving licence. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the parties had made available before me a copy of the military motor vehicles drivers licence, which is valid for the period from 11.1.99 to 2000. The accident had taken place on 26.2.00 at 9.30 p.m. A perusal of the driving licence did not reveal that it has got validity during the period of February 2000 for the reason that it only states the validity from 11.1.99 to 2000. So it requires some materials to substantiate that there was a driving licence. Whether a person who has been given licence by the military authorities to ride those MACA Nos. 1456 & 386/04 2 vehicles will be sufficient to drive private vehicles also will be a question that has to be considered. Over and above all these things, the matter has to be approached on the basic principles laid down in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)]. In para 102 of the said decision the Apex court has given clear guidelines about how the matter has to be approached. It appears that the Tribunal did not have the privilege of having this decision before it at the time of disposal of the case. Therefore, the matter requires reconsideration at the hands of the court below so far as it relates to the inter se dispute between the driver, owner and the Insurance Company. For the said purpose, the award is set aside to that extent and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for consideration regarding the validity of licence and also whether it comes within the four corners of the guidelines given in Swaran Singh's case. All parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and thereafter the court below is directed to dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 14.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps