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. 2272 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.178/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------ UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KALLAI ROAD, CALICUT - 2. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER,1 AND 2 RESPONDENTS --------------------------- 1. JANAKI, W/O.NARAYANAN, AAMBICHIKATTIL HOUSE, P.O.CHINGANPURAM, THIKKODI, QUILANDY. 2. K.K.HUSSAIN, S/O.MAMMU HAJI, KUNIYIL HOUSE P.O. ARIKKULAM, QUILANDY. 3. RAJAN S/O. KRISHNAN NAIR, PULIKKAL HOUSE VIYYUR AMSOM, P.O. KOLLAM, QUILANDY. ADV. SRI.K.RAKESH ROSHAN FOR R1 SMT.THUSHARA.V FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2272 OF 2008 ===================== Dated this the 4th day of December 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Vadakara in O.P.(MV)No.178 of 2005. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.23,600/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for the insurance company as well as the counsel for the claimant. A perusal of the award would reveal that the first respondent in the claim petition has contended that he had transferred the vehicle and that person in turn had transferred the vehicle to the 2nd respondent in the claim petition, who is the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle. The insurance company also would contend that the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore there is breach of policy conditions. The AMVI's report also would reveal that the driving licence was not produced at the time of the inspection of the vehicle. It is always desirable that positive is proved rather than to prove the negative. When a MACA 2272/2008 -:2:- petition is filed for production of driving licence by the driver, the court is expected to permit the same instead of returning it on the ground that the number is not shown. Whatever it may be, the entire matter requires reconsideration. Therefore I set aside the award without disturbing the quantum and direct the Tribunal to permit the parties to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Needless to say that when a notice is issued to the driver to produce the driving licence and when he does not respond, necessarily adverse inference be drawn and the matter be disposed of accordingly. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 9.1.2009. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-