IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH AUGUST 2008 / 27TH SRAVANA 1930 MACA.No. 617 of 2007() ---------------------- OPMV.328/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ------------------------------- KURIAN, S/O.VARKEY, ALAKKARAYIL HOUSE, KOTAPPADY KARA, KOTTAPPADY VILLAGE. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS: --------------------------------------- 1. SHAIJU, S/O.THANKAPPAN, KOLAKKADAN HOUSE, EKKUNNAMKARA ASAMANNOOR VILLAGE. 2. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI. MATHEW GEORGE,SC FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 617/07 2 ORDER ON IA No. 883/07 IN MACA No.617/07 DISMISSED 18.8.08 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ PA TO JUDGE. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 617 OF 2007 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of August, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, in OP(MV) 328/98. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.7,550/- with 9% interest and directed the 1st respondent to reimburse the amount by virtue of an amendment as per IA No.5275/03. The Tribunal found that the 1st respondent did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and liberty was given to the Insurance Company to recover it from the owner cum driver. It is against that decision,the present appeal is preferred. 2. Heard the counsel for the appellant in detail. Admittedly on the date of the alleged accident, there was no effective valid driving licence for the appellant. The licence had expired in the year 1995 in the month of May and it has been renewed only in the month of February, i.e., after a period of almost nine months. As per the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules, if the renewal is done within a period of 30 days it will have the validity. Being an owner cum driver, he MACA No. 617/07 2 was conscious of the fact that he was not having an effective valid driving licence and was riding the vehicle. So there is a specific breach of the policy condition. 3. Therefore, I cannot find fault with the Tribunal for directing the Insurance Company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner cum driver. Learned counsel as a last submission would submit that some instalment facility may be given to him. I feel it is worth consideration and the same can be permitted when such a request is made before the Tribunal on the execution side. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 617/07 3