IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 24TH JUNE 2008 / 3RD ASHADHA 1930 MACA.No. 1238 of 2007() ---------------------------------- OPMV.384/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER: -------------------------------------- JOLLY, S/O. LATE THOMAS, KALLANICKAL HOUSE, MUTTAM VILLAGE, MUTTAM KARA, THODUPUZHA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.LATHEESH SEBASTIAN SMT.BINITHA JAMES RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------- 1. M.S. KASSIM, MADEENA MANZIL, KUMARAMANGALAM VILLAGE, VENGALLOOR, THODUPUZHA. 2. BIJU, S/O. GEORGE, PUNNAKUNNEL HOUSE, CHALASSERY BHAGAM, KARIKODU VILLAGE, THODUPUZHA TALUK. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, TRICHUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL - R1 SRI.P.NOOR SEMIR - R1 SRI.A.C.DEVASIA - R1 DR.ELIZABETH VARKEY - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1238 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 24th day of June, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV)384/03. The appellant alleging to be a head load worker aged 27 years sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.27,400/-. The Tribunal found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner. It is against that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for the claimant, owner as well as the insurance company. A perusal of the award would reveal that the petitioner had sustained suspected unicortial fracture besides extraperitoneal rupture of bladder and vertical shear of right hemipelvis and also M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2007 -:2:- fracture of the sacrum. He was an inpatient in the hospital for 13 days. Learned counsel would submit that as he was undergoing imprisonment in some other criminal cases he was not in a position to adduce evidence. According to him the injury sustained to him are very severe in nature and therefore if an opportunity is given he will be in a position to adduce better evidence. 3. Similarly, learned counsel for the owner also would submit that if an opportunity is given he will be able to establish that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner and including the question of driving licence. It is true that the Tribunal had taken an adverse inference for non production of the driving licence. Since the matter is being remanded it can also be considered. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the purpose of considering the quantum of compensation as well as the liability of the owner and claim of the insurance company for reimbursement. All the parties M.A.C.A. 1238 OF 2007 -:3:- are permitted to adduce both oral and documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 4.8.2008. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-