IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.RAVINDRAN FRIDAY, THE 11TH FEBRUARY 2011 / 22ND MAGHA 1932 OP (MACT).No. 1186 of 2010(O) ----------------------------- OPMV.1277/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... PETITIONER ------------------ ISSAC, S/O. VARGHESE, MOOLAPANTHURUTH THIRUMALA, THURAVOOR.P.O., ALAPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.JOHN BRITTO SRI.C.A.RAJEEV RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. REGINA, W/O. LAE ANTONY, EDAVAZHECKAL VEETTIL, WARD NO.VIII, KODAMTHURUTH PANCHAYATH ALAPPUZHA-688007. 2. SEBASTIAN, S/O. LATE ANTONY, EDAVAZHECKAL VEETTIL WARD NO.VIII, KODAMTHURUTH PANAHCYATH ALAPPUZHA. 3. VARGHESE, S/O. LATE ANTONY, EDAVAZHECKAL VEETTIL, WARD NO. VIII, KODAMTHURUTH PANCHAYATH ALAPPUZHA. 4. JANCY, D/O. LATE ANTONY, EDAVAZHECKAL VEETTIL, WARD NO. VIII, KODAMTHURUTH PANCHAYATH, ALAPPUZHA. 5. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., RAVIPURAM BRANCH, ERNAKULAM. BY GOVT. PLEADER SRI.BASANT BALAJI. THIS OP (MACT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/02/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.N. RAVINDRAN, J. ------------------------------- O.P.(MAC) No.1186 OF 2010 ------------------------------- Dated this the 11th day of February, 2011 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is the owner of an invalid carriage bearing registration No.KL-4/C 1644, that met with an accident on 13.9.1996, causing injuries to Sri.Antony who was the pillion rider of that vehicle. Sri.Antony thereupon filed O.P.(M.V.) No.1277 of 1997 in the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha seeking payment of the sum of Rs.6,47,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident. The petitioner herein who was the owner first respondent therein did not appear inspite of receipt of notice from the Tribunal. He was therefore set ex parte and in his absence, the trial was conducted and evidence was recorded. Though the vehicle was covered by a valid policy of insurance, the Insurer contended that the petitioner did not possess a valid licence to drive the vehicle, and therefore, the Insurer is not liable. Later, the insurer filed I.A.No.2283 of 2001 for an order directing the petitioner, the first respondent in the claim petition to produce his driving licence. The Tribunal allowed the application and issued notice to the petitioner but he did not appear and produce the licence. The Tribunal thereafter passed Ext.P1 award on 13.11.2003 determining the compensation payable to the O.P.(MAC) No.1186 of 2010 2 claimant. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.50,000/- as compensation with interest and costs and directed the insurer to pay the amount. The Tribunal also permitted the insurer to recover the money paid by it from the petitioner on the ground that he did not possess a valid driving licence. 2. Ext.P1 award has become final. The insurer paid the compensation as directed by the Tribunal and thereafter took steps to recover the compensation paid by it from the petitioner by filing E.P.No.25 of 2004 in O.P.(M.V.) No.1277 of 1997. The petitioner received notice of the execution petition on 15.4.2008. Even thereafter, he waited till 5.2.2009 to file I.A.Nos.864 and 865 of 2009, the former to set aside the ex parte award passed against him and the latter to condone the delay of 4 years and 82 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. He contended in the affidavit filed in support of those applications that he came to know of the award passed against him only after receipt of notice in the execution petition on 15.4.2008. The Tribunal after perusing the records dismissed the application holding that no grounds have been made out to condone the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte award. Ext.P7 order passed in that regard is under challenge O.P.(MAC) No.1186 of 2010 3 in this writ petition. The main contention raised by the petitioner is that he possessed a valid learners licence that was issued 6.9.1996, that it was valid till 5.3.1997 and therefore there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. He relies on Ext.P3 mahazar prepared the day after the accident to contend for the position that he was holding a valid driving licence and therefore the insurer is liable. 3. The fact that the petitioner possessed only a learners licence on 13.9.1996 when the accident took place is not under challenge. Under section 14(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, a learners licence is effective for a period of six months from the date of issue. Therefore, the licence was valid till 5.3.1997. Though a learners licence entitles the person holding the same to drive the vehicle, rule 3 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989 stipulates that the person holding a learners licence has to be accompanied by an Instructor holding an effective driving licence to drive the vehicle and such Instructor shall sit in such a position to control or stop the vehicle. It is further stipulated that the vehicle must carry 'L' plates both in the front and rear of the vehicle. The petitioner has no case that he had with him a person holding a valid driving licence when he was driving the vehicle on 6.9.1996. He has not pleaded or proved that the O.P.(MAC) No.1186 of 2010 4 claimant in the claim petition who was the pillion rider possessed a valid driving licence. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner had a learners licence is not a ground to hold that there was no breach of the conditions of the policy. Further, the impugned order discloses and the petitioner does not dispute the fact that notice of the claim petition was served on him and he was set ex parte on 19.3.1999. Ext.P1 award was passed only on 13.11.2003. In the year 2001, the insurer had filed I.A.No.2283 of 2001 for an order directing the petitioner, the first respondent in the claim petition, to produce his driving licence. The Tribunal allowed the said application and issued notice to the petitioner. Though the petitioner received notice, he did not appear before the Tribunal. Even assuming that by that time the validity of the learners licence had expired, the petitioner could have produced the licence, if any, held by him and proved the fact that on the relevant date he possessed a learners licence by producing the records which he could have obtained from the Motor Vehicles department. He did not for reasons best known to him appear before the Tribunal at that stage also. In such circumstances, the explanation offered by the petitioner in the affidavit filed in support of the application to condone the delay in filing the application to set O.P.(MAC) No.1186 of 2010 5 aside ex parte award cannot be believed. I am therefore satisfied that the Tribunal was perfectly right in rejecting the application. I, therefore, find no grounds to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. P.N. RAVINDRAN, JUDGE. nj.