IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 14TH JUNE 2011 / 24TH JYAISHTA 1933 MACA.No. 399 of 2005() ---------------------- AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 03/11/2004 IN IA. 3879 /2004 IN OPMV.541/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RRESPONDENT ----------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, PERINTHALMANNA, NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, THIRD PARTY CLAIMS CELL, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------- 1. UNNIKRISHNAN, S/O.NARAYANAN NAIR, ULLATHODIYIL HOUSE, PERUMUDIYOOR P.O., PATTAMBI, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 2. SURESH, S/O.UNNIKRISHNAN, ELAYADATHUTHODIYIL HOUSE, MALAYIL, CHORAKODE, OTTAPALAM TALUK. 3. M.B.BEERAN, S/O.MAMMAD, MULLAPPULLY HOUSE, KARUVA, MAKKARAPARAMBA, PERINTHALMANNA TALUK. R1 BY ADV. SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH SRI.P.P.SURESHKUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/06/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ----------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No.399 of 2005 ------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 14th day of June, 2011 JUDGMENT A.K.Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal filed by the Insurer of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident is whether the Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the driver and owner of the vehicle. 2. The specific case of the appellant before the Tribunal was that the driver of the vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. In fact, it is seen from the records that the appellant had filed an interlocutory application (I.A No.4439/03) before the Tribunal praying for a direction to the owner and driver to produce the driving license. Though the said application was allowed by the Tribunal the respondents failed to produce the driving licence. But till the Tribunal, after considering the documentary evidence adduced M.A.C.A. No.399 of 2005 2 by the claimant awarded a sum of Rs.25,600/- to him and directed the Insurance Company to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. 3. The appellant had thereafter filed a Review Petition before the Tribunal pointing out that the direction to indemnify the owner was not just or proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, the Review Petition was also dismissed by the Tribunal. It is in the above circumstance that the appellant has filed this appeal. 4. As has been noticed already, the owner or driver did not produce the driving license before the Tribunal though a specific direction was issued to them by the Tribunal. The appellant had produced Exhibit B2 charge sheet filed by the police in the case which also revealed that the driver did not posses a licence at the time of the accident. Though the driver and owner, (respondent Nos.2 and 3), have been served with notice in the appeal, they have not appeared either in person or through counsel. 5. Having carefully perused the entire materials available on record, we are satisfied that the appellant is entitled to M.A.C.A. No.399 of 2005 3 recover the compensation amount that has already been paid by it, from the owner of the vehicle, namely respondent No.3, in this appeal. With this modification in the award, the appeal is disposed of. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE. P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. rkc