IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 6TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 15TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1121 of 2004(D) --------------------------------- OPMV.655/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT : --------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE IRINJALAKUDA, POST IRINJALAKUDA REPRESENTED BY MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND R1 AND 2 : ---------------------------------------------------- 1. K.V.BABU, S/O.KURIAPILLY VEERAVUNNY, LAKSHAM VEEDU COLONY, MAPRANAM, POST MADAYIKONAM, PORATHISSERY VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. P.C.RAGHU, S/O.CHAKAN, PAYYAPILLY HOUSE, MADAYIKONAM VILLAGE, POST MADAYIKONAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 3. SHANAVAS, S/O.KURIAPPILLY SAIDU, URAKAM VILLAGE, KARUVANNUR DESOM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.ANTONY MUKKATH - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 1121 of 2004(D) ORDER ON I.A.2499 OF 2004 IN M.A.C.A.1121 OF 2004 DISMISSED 06.11.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1121 OF 2004 --------------------------------- Dated this the 6th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda in O.P.(MV) No.655/1997. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded compensation and negatived the contention of the Insurance Company for reimbursement on the ground that the Insurance Company has not proved that there was no valid driving licence for the driver. While considering the question of negligence in para 7 of the award the Tribunal has observed that “ it was also brought out from the evidence that the driver was not duly licensed. In fact a petty case was charged against the driver for having driven the vehicle without licence”. But while considering the question of liability the learned Tribunal held that the third respondent has not adduced any positive evidence to prove that the second respondent was an unlicensed person and went on to observe that the police inspection report alone is not sufficient. Reference to the memorandum of appeal especially in para 7 would reveal that Insurance Company filed I.A. 1259/2003 for production of the driving licence. As per order dated 23.10.2003 M.A.C.A.No. 1121 OF 2004 -2- the Tribunal held that notice served, memo filed, driving licence not produced, adverse inference drawn and petition closed. After recording such a finding it was not correct on the part of the Tribunal to have observed that there is no evidence to prove the absence of driving licence. When there is a police charge sheet coupled with an application for production of licence and on the non production of the licence the court had drawn an adverse inference, do not think better evidence is necessary to be proved by the Insurance Company. Therefore I hold that the driver was driving the vehicle without valid driving licence. The finding of the Tribunal regarding the non evidence is absolutely incorrect. Therefore it is set aside. It was a duty cast upon the owner to come and explain the other details which he had not done. Therefore the award of the Tribunal so far as it relates to the refusal of reimbursement of amount is set aside and it is ordered that on satisfaction of the award the Insurance Company is entitled to get the amount reimbursed from the owner of the vehicle by executing the very same award. The M.A.C.A is allowed as above. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm