IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2008 / 13TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 475 of 2007(D) ----------------------- OPMV.307/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- T.M.ALIKUNJU, S/O.MEERAN, THENNALIL HOUSE, PUNNAPPADY, MUDAVOOR P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SYAMKUMAR, S/O. RAGHAVAN, AGED 19 YEARS, RESIDING AT PIRAMADATHOTTATHIL HOUSE, PAIPRA KARA, MULAVOOR VILLAGE, MUVATUPUZHA. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, BRANCH OFFICE, EBENEZER GARDEN, EDAPPALLY, H.S.JUNCTION, ERNAKULAM. BY ADVS. SRI.K.JAJU BABU FOR R1 SMT.M.U.VIJAYALAKSHMI FOR R1 SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R2 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2008 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A.480/07, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. 475/2007 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 650/2007 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 475/2007 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 04.08.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. vkm M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------------- M.A.C.A.Nos. 475 OF 2007 & 480 OF 2007 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August, 2008 J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the awards passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(M.V) No.307/2003 and O.P.(M.V)No.305/2003. The claimant, in O.P.(M.V) 307/03 was the pillion rider and the claimant in the other case was the rider of the motorbike. There was a collision between the motorbike and an Autorickshaw. Unfortunately, in both cases the driver of the Autorickshaw has not been impleaded as a party. The Tribunal arrived at a decision regarding the negligence of the driver on the contention made by the Insurance Company but exonerated the Company from the liability on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. I am afraid in these type of cases, an award cannot be passed without the junction of the driver. The Apex Court considered this question in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Meena Variyal and others in (2007(2) ACJ 1284), wherein it has been held that the junction of the driver is necessary in cases filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. There may be cases where the M.A.C.A.Nos. 475/2007 & 480/2007 -2- accident is admitted, policy is admitted and negligence is admitted. In such cases the Insurance Company is liable to pay the amount. In such type of cases, one can most probably dispense with the impleadment of the driver. But in this case the Tribunal finds that there was no effective valid driving licence for the driver and holds that the owner is liable to reimburse the amount. I am afraid that the decision taken without the junction of the driver may not be proper. I am not going to the other aspects of the matter at all. 2. Therefore I set aside the award passed in both the cases and direct the claimant to implead the driver of the Autorickshaw as a necessary party and thereafter provide opportunity to all concerned to adduce documentary and oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then the Tribunal shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 5.9.2008 Till such time a decision is taken, the Insurance Company is directed not to take coercive action for realisation of the amount from the owner. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE vkm