IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MARCH 2008 / 6TH CHAITHRA 1930 OP.No. 14869 of 2002(T) ----------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,REGIONAL OFFICE,AJAY VIHAR,M.G.ROAD,KOCHI BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR. 2. RAMESH P.K. S/O.UNIPERAVAN,PALLIKKANDI HOUSE,ARIYALLUR P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 3. MOHAMMED ABDUL RAHIMAN S/O.MOHAMMED NAHA,KIZHAKKAINIYAKATH HOUSE,NEDUVA, PARAPPANANGADI P.O.,MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY / THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26.03.2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.NO. 14869/2002 : 2 : APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:- EXT.P1:- TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DT. 31.03.1999 IN O.P(MV) 770 OF 1996 /True Copy/ P.A to Judge. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, J = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = O.P.No. 14869 OF 2002-T = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 26th day of March, 2008. = = = = = = = = == = = = = = = = = = = J U D G M E N T The challenge is against Ext.P1. The insurer is the petitioner herein. They are aggrieved by the judgment rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur, in O.P.(MV).No. 770/96. As per the award, the Tribunal granted compensation to the tune of Rs. 7108/ plus 12% interest per annum. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. The sole contention raised is that at the time of accident, the driver had no valid licence. A reading of the judgment shows that in the written statement, the contention raised is that there is violation of the condition of the policy in that documents relating to the vehicle, were not produced before the insurer. The judgment shows that the Tribunal raised 4 issues. But there was no issue before the Tribunal as regards the question now raised by the petitioner before this court. The Tribunal on an assessment of the evidence found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver and the O.P.No. 14869 OF 2002-T 2 compensation was arrived as noted above. Since the contention raised only is that the driver and the registered owner failed to produce the relevant record before the insurer which amounts to violation of the policy condition and no specific contention is raised in the written statement regarding the validity of the licence, I find that the arguments now raised before this Court cannot be appreciated. Apart from that Ext.X1, extract of driving licence was produced by the Joint RTO, Tirur, which was relied in the connected case O.P(MV).No. 770/96, to find that the driver was having valid licence. Since it is a finding of fact, the same cannot be interfered with in this proceedings. The writ petition is dismissed. T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR JUDGE bkn/-