IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 12TH JULY 2010 / 21ST ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 413 of 2010() --------------------------------- OPMV.546/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------------------- BABY PAUL, PANATTU HOUSE, ASAMANOOR P.O. PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.R.MANOJ SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. A.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR, S/O.PADMANABHAN NAIR, ATHIPILLIL HOUSE, AYYANKAVU, KUTHUKUZHI, KOTHAMANGALAM. 2. JOY, PUTHEYATHU HOUSE, RAJAKUMARIKARA, RAJAKUMARI, IDUKKI. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PERUMBAVOOR. R3 BY SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.1545/2010 IN MACA. NO.413/2010 DISMISSED 12/07/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 413 OF 2010 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)546/03. The Tribunal passed an award granting a sum of Rs.30,761/- with 8.5% interest and directed the insurance company to satisfy the award and then recover it from the owner namely the first respondent in the O.P(MV). It is against that decision the appeal is preferred. 2. The first hurdle which the owner may have to overcome is regarding the name of the driver. The respondent is shown as Joy son of Mathai. But the licence and other particulars are in the name of Jose son of Mathai. Learned counsel had brought to my notice a copy of the written statement filed wherein R2 is described himself as Jose @ Joy. If Jose and Joy are one and the same person the next question will be regarding the licence. Learned counsel had produced before me some photocopies of the M.A.C.A. 413 OF 2010 -:2:- licence and in one of the endorsements I am able to find that the licence to drive a transport vehicle is renewed up to 14.6.03. The accident had taken place on 15.2.2003. So if really there is a renewal of the driving licence to drive a transport vehicle up to 14.6.03, then there is a valid driving licence with badge. So the factum that Jose and Joy are one and the same person and there was a valid and effective driving licence on 15.2.03 are the matters which the appellant has to establish before the Tribunal. Since there are contentions and some documents I do not want to deprive him of an opportunity and therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the interse dispute between the owner and the insurance company is concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Till a final decision is taken in the matter the authorities, i.e. the insurance M.A.C.A. 413 OF 2010 -:3:- company as well as the revenue recovery authorities are directed not to proceed against the appellant for realisation of the amount. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 19.8.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-