IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 29TH JULY 2008 / 7TH SRAVANA 1930 M.A.C.A.No. 990 of 2006(B) ---------------------- (AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 30/11/2005 PASSED BY THE M.A.C.T., KASARAGOD IN O.P(M.V) NO.688/2002) APPELLANT/SUPPL. 4TH RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 RESPECTIVELY: ----------------------------------------------------------- 1. P.C.CHACKO, AGED 84 YRS, S/O. CHACKO, PADIYARA HOUSE, CHITTARIKKAL VILLAGE AND POST, HOSDURGH TALUK, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. ROY, S/O. JOHNY, VIMALA HOTEL, PULINGOM, EDAVARAMBU P.O., KANNUR DIST. 3. KURIAKOSE P.J., S/O. JOSEPH, PADIMATTATHIL HOUSE, P.O.PUTHAN PARA, ALAKKODE. BY ADV. SRI.TOMY SEBASTIAN - R3 SRI.RAJESH PALAMATTAM - R3 SRI.SAJEEVAN KURUKKUTTIYULLATHIL - R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 990 /2006 ORDER ON I.A NO.1099 OF 2006 IN M.A.C.A.NO.990 OF 2006 DISMISSED SD/- 29/07/2008 M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE /TRUE COPY/ P.A TO JUDGE scm M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 990 OF 2006 --------------------- Dated this the 29th day of July, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod, in OP(MV) 688/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation of Rs.11,600/- with 9% interest. Aggrieved by the same, the Insurance Company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel for both sides. Insurance Company now seeks that atleast an order for reimbursement shall be granted on the ground that the driver did not have a valid driving licence. Learned counsel for the Insurance Company has made available before me a copy of the written statement filed by it, for perusal. It is specifically stated in para 4 that the 1st respondent in the claim petition was not having valid vehicular documents and further that the owner has knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. So it was contended that there was a breach of policy condition and therefore the Insurance MACA No.990/06 2 Company is not bound to indemnify. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has totally lost sight of that pleading. It did not raise any issue. To crown all these things, I am informed that the application filed calling upon the driver to produce licence was dismissed as well. On account of these factors, it has resulted in injustice to the Insurance Company. 3. In the light of the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)], the Insurance Company has to pay the amount. When it succeeds in proving about the breach of policy conditions, it will be entitled to get an order for reimbursement from the owner. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the owner would contend that there are valid vehicular records and valid driving licence and therefore he may not be saddled with the liability. But these are all matters which require consideration and that evidence is also necessary. Therefore, the award under challenge is partly set aside and the inter se dispute between the Insurance Company and the owner has to be determined i.e. as to whether the driver of the auto was having a valid effective driving licence and whether there was a breach of policy conditions and if so, whether the Insurance MACA No.990/06 3 Company is entitled to get reimbursement from the owner. For these purposes, both parties are permitted to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and the Tribunal is directed to dispose of the mater in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.9.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No.990/06 4