IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 17TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 26TH KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 1614 of 2005(B) ----------------------- OPMV.715/1999 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------------------- BHASKARAN, S/O.KUNHIKANNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHANDUNNIYIL HOUSE, P.O.KOTTAYAM MALABAR, KUTHUPARAMBA. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR SRI.P.SURESH RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS. --------------------------- 1. P.BABU, S/OACHUTHAN, RESIDING AT VAZHAYIL HOUSE, KOOVAPPADY P.O. KOTTAYAM MALABAR, VIA KUTHUPARAMBA. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KANNUR 670 001. ADV. SRI.R.VISWANATH FOR R1 ADV. M.A. GEORGE. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/11/2008, ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1615 OF 2005 MACA NO. 1677 OF 2005 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 1614, 1615 and 1677 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV) Nos.715, 717 and 716/98 respectively. The owner-cum- driver and the insurance company are represented in these cases here also. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are that the claimants were travelling in an auto rickshaw and when it reached the place of accident, it had overturned due to the negligent driving of the first respondent resulting in injuries to the claimants. According to them in the claim petition the accident took place on 3.9.96 and the vehicle No. is KL 13B/8718. There is no dispute with respect to the accident really. But the insurance company has disputed the fact that the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The Tribunal after considering the materials felt that there is some M.A.C.A. NOs. 1614, 1615 and 1677 OF 2005 -:2:- collusion between all. It appears that in the wound certificate the registration number of the vehicle is shown as KL 13B/1887. But all other records would reveal that the vehicle involved in the accident is KL 13B/8718. Unfortunately, the Tribunal felt that there is some foul play and it further went on to hold that all the claimants were fully intoxicated at the time of the accident and it also felt that an explanation is necessary why the rider of the auto rickshaw did not sustain any injuries. I am afraid such an apprehension shall not worry the mind of the Tribunal when there is no dispute regarding the involvement of the vehicle in the accident and the Tribunal should have proceeded to decide the other matters. Therefore I set aside the finding of the Tribunal and hold that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by the first respondent and it was bearing Reg. No.KL 13B/8718. 2. Now, the other factors are the quantum to be fixed as well as the question whether the driver did have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and whether M.A.C.A. NOs. 1614, 1615 and 1677 OF 2005 -:3:- there was breach of policy conditions on account of that. Unfortunately the Tribunal has not considered these aspects at all and so the matter requires reconsideration. I feel an opportunity can be given to all the parties to substantiate their respective contentions in accordance with law. In the result all the awards impugned are set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for fresh consideration regarding the factum of quantum of compensation as well as the factum of valid driving licence of the auto rickshaw driver and also the breach of policy conditions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 29.12.08 and being a 1996 accident the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter within a period of two months from the date of first appearance of the parties. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-