IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 4TH DECEMBER 2008 / 13TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2083 of 2008() ---------------------------------- OPMV.154/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,BANGALORE, REP. BY THE MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD. COCHIN-35. BY ADV. SRI.E.M.JOSEPH RESPONDENTS/CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SIDHARTHAN, S/O. PRABHAKARAN, PANIKKATTIL HOUSE, P.O. PANANGAD, S.N.PURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. RAVI. S/O.MARI GOWDA, SREE RAMA KRISHNA LODGE, S.C.ROAD, DT.BANGALORE, KARNATAKA – 560 009. 3. YOGESH G.M. S/O. MALLESHAPPA, SOMAHALLY VILLAGE, HALEBEEDU, HASSAN DISTRICT, KARNATAKA. ADV. SRI.K.JAYAKUMAR FOR R1 SRI.P.B.KRISHNAN FOR R1 SRI.N.AJITH FOR R1 SRI.P.M.NEELAKANDAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 04/12/2008,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2083 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakkuda in O.P.(MV)No.154 of 2003. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident when a tata sumo driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition hit on a cycle resulting in injuries to the cyclist. The Tribunal did not accept the contention of the insurance company that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the insurance company as well as for the owner. Learned counsel for the insurance company had made available before me an extract of the history sheet of the drivers which would indicate that the driver in this case only did possess a valid driving licence to drive an auto rickshaw and it did not reveal that he is an authorized person to drive a car. Learned counsel also had brought to my attention the decision of the Apex Court in the decision reported in MACA 2083/2008 -:2:- Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Zaharulnisha(2008(3) KLT SN 23(Case No.27). It was a case where a scooterist who did possess licence to drive a heavy motor vehicle did not have the licence to drive a scooter. The Apex Court held that since he was driving a totally different class of vehicle, the insurer is not liable. But, unfortunately these documents are not marked before the Tribunal and the additional written statement filed by the insurance company has not been received also and further the owner and driver did not contest the case before the Tribunal. So the matter requires reconsideration so far as it relates to the liability is concerned. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside but without disturbing the quantum and the parties are permitted to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. It is also directed that respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition is permitted to file written statement and the company an additional written statement and thereafter appropriate issues be framed and the matter be disposed of in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 9.1.2009. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 2083/2008 -:3:-