IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 2ND FEBRUARY 2010 / 13TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1056 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.827/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 -------------------------------------------- 1. P.P.MOHAMMED SHERIF, POOLAPARAMBIL HOUSE, ELATTIL VIA.KODUVALLY, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. PANTHALAM KANDY AZEEZ, S/O. ASSAN HAJI, KAYAKKADY AMSOM KARANDODI DESOM, P.O.KARANDODI, VADAKARA TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.T.KRISHNAN UNNI, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------------- 1. P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR, S/O. KANNA KURUP, THALACHEIRAYIL HOUSE, (POLICE DRIVER, HC, 3000 KUTTIADI POLICE STATION) KAYAKKEDI AMSOM, KARANDODE DESOM, P.O.KARANDODI, VADAKARA. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., KINGSWAY BUILDING, MAVOOR ROAD, CALICUT 673 001, (INSURER). . POLICY NO.441003/300/828/MV/11741/95 NB VALID FROM 17-2-1995 TO 16-2-1996. ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 02/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A NO.2370 OF 2004 IN M.AC.A. No.1056 OF 2004 CLOSED. 2/2/2010 SD/- M.N KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY M.N. KRISHNAN, J ------------------------- M.A.C.A No.1056 OF 2004 ---------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Motor Accident claims tribunal Vadakara in OP(MV).827/1996. A perusal of the award would reveal that the Tribunal found that it was the second respondent who had driven the vehicle and at the time of the accident he was a minor, aged 16 years, who did not have any valid driving licence and therefore the owner of the vehicle is bound to reimburse the amount to insurance company. I have called for the records and perused the same. It can be seen that it was the second respondent who had driven the vehicle and that the accident took place on account of his negligence. The scene mahazar also would reveal that the accident had taken on the right margin . The claimant is a retired police constable. I also perused the judgment of the criminal court. I did not want to say anything about the same. But it has to be stated that there were three eye witnesses, who had identified the accused. The claimant herein had not detracted from his earlier statement and he has clearly stated that the car was driven by a minor boy. M.A.C.A No.1056/2004 2 Before the Tribunal he had deposed the same and nothing has been brought out to discredit his evidence. It is also clear that the respondents 1 and 2 did not enter the box to give any evidence in support of their contentions. So the Tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the car was driven by the second respondent and it was on account of his negligence the accident took place and he did not have any driving licence, especially he was only aged about 16 years. The nature of injuries also are referred to and only a reasonable compensation has been awarded. The Insurance company is directed to give compensation to the 3rd party. There is also fundamental breach of policy condition by the owner of the vehicle. I do not find any irregularity, or mistake committed by the court below in passing an order directing reimbursement. Therefore the appeal is without any merit and therefore, it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. sou.