IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 289 of 2005(C) ---------------------- OPMV.201/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP. BY ITS MANAGER, THRID PARTY CELL, VETTUKATTIL BUILDINGS, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ----------------------------------------------- 1. ALLY PUSHPAN, W/O.PUSHPAN, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, P.O.NARAKKAL, NARAKKAL, KADAPPURAM. 2. ABOOBACKER, M.B., S/O.BAVA, THARAPPALATH HOUSE, VELIYATHUNADU ALANGADU, ALUVA. 3. JOSEY, S/O.ANTHO, PADATHU HOUSE, MALIPPURAM. ADV. SRI.K.I.ABDUL RASHEED FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.520 OF 2005 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 289 OF 2005 DISMISSED 25/9/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 289 OF 2005 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 25th day of September, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV)201/01. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation by the Tribunal. The Tribunal fixed the liability on the insurance company. A perusal of the written statement filed by the insurance company would show that it has raised a specific contention that the 2nd respondent driver of the auto rickshaw was not holding an effective valid driving licence and badge to drive the vehicle. So there was breach of policy condition and hence it is not liable to indemnify. Learned counsel also would submit that the insurance company has filed an application calling upon the driver to produce licence but the Tribunal did not consider this contention and has passed an award against the insurance company. The Tribunal should have framed an appropriate issue and should have given a finding on the said M.A.C.A. 289 OF 2005 -:2:- point. It has not been done and therefore the matter requires reconsideration. So far as the payment of compensation is concerned the claimant is a person who is to be compensated by the insurance company but there will be only the right to recovery as there is a breach of policy condition. So the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the total liability of the insurance company and it is remitted back to the Tribunal for framing appropriate issue on the question of breach of policy condition and after entering into a finding and if it is found that there is no licence it amounts to breach of policy conditions, the right to recover from the owner is to be granted. The question of badge also may be considered. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 10.11.08. The MACA is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-