IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 964 of 2006(B) ---------------------- OP(MV) NO.1717/2002 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA. .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI 18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT/RESPONDENTS 1&2: -------------------------------------- 1. KURIACHAN P.V. S/O.VARGHEESE .P.P. PALATHINGAL HOUSE, EZHIPRAM KARA, KADAYIRUPPU PO, IKKARANADU NORTH VILLAGE, KUNNATHUNADU TALUK. 2. RAJAPPAN, S/O.GOPALAN, KOMBAMTHANATHU HOUSE, ELANJI VILLAGE, ELANJI KARA. 3. ROJI ABRAHAM, S/O.ABRAHAM, KONUMPURATHKUDIYIL HOUSE, THIRUVANIYOOR, PUTHENCRUZ. BY ADV. SRI.T.K.VIPINDAS - R.3 SRI.A.A.ABUL HASSAN - R1 SMT.MINI.V.A.- R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 964/ 2006 ORDER ON I.A NO.1068 OF 2006 IN M.A.C.A NO.964 OF 2006 DISMISSED SD/- 29/07/2008 M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 964 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, in OP(MV) 1717/02. The claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs.23,000/- and the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the amount within one month. 2. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company would contend that having found that the driver did not have an effective valid driving licence, the Tribunal should have atleast given a recovery right to the Insurance Company. It is further contended that the appellant had made an application to implead the registered owner of the vehicle as a necessary party. It was dismissed by the Tribunal as per its order in IA 2202/05. Now the two question that arises for determination are as follows: (i) Whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the application for impleadment of the registered owner. (ii) Whether the Tribunal was right in not granting any order in favour of the Insurance Company the right to recovery of the amount in the light of the finding that there was no valid driving licence. 3. So far as the first point is concerned, a Division Bench of this court in Ashraf v. Fathima [2004 (2) KLT 598] had held that there is a contract of insurance only between the Insurance Company and the MACA No.964/08 2 registered owner and as the policy stands in the name of the registered owner, the Insurance Company is not entitled to realise the amount from a person who is defacto in possession of the vehicle. So the junction of the registered owner in whose name the insurance policy stands is a necessary party and therefore the Tribunal was wrong in dismissing that application. 4. So far as second point is concerned, it is true that when a third party is injured in an accident in the light of the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)] the Insurance Company has to pay the amount. But, when they prove that there was no effective valid driving licence and there is breach of policy conditions, atleast the right to recover the amount has to be granted from the person who is liable to do so. In a case of this nature, a twin question that may arise in the light of the definition of the owner under the Motor Vehicles Act. Under section 2(30) a person in possession of a vehicle by virtue of an agreement is also an owner for the purpose of the Motor Vehicles Act. At the same time, when the policy stands in the name of the registered owner and as the contract of insurance is between the registered owner and the Insurance Company, the Insurance Company may only be able to realise the amount from the registered owner. When such a situation arises, the Tribunal may have to find that the registered MACA No.964/08 3 owner so as to reimburse the amount with a further liberty to the the registered owner to realise that amount from the person who is the owner in possession of the vehicle. 5. These are all matters which has not been considered at all by the Tribunal. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the inter se liability between the Insurance Company and the registered owner and driver. To that extent, the award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal. The Tribunal is directed to permit the Insurance Company to implead the registered owner of the vehicle and also to permit all parties to produce both documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Since the junction of driver is necessary, the Insurance Company is also permitted to take out notice to the driver after its appearance before the Tribunal so that all can be heard before a final decision is taken in the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.964/08 4