IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2009 / 29TH ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1988 of 2008() ------------------------------------- OPMV.329/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------ T.P.MAMMU, S/O.KAMMU, THAYYAMPALLIL HOUSE, POST PAIKANNUR, KUTTIPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. MR.C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS/SUPPL/PETITIONER/ RESPONDENTS 1 & 3 -------------------------- 1. V.P.YOUSEF, S/O.POCKER (LATE), VALLIKOTTAPARAMBIL HOUSE, KOLAKKAD, POST KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. V.P.KUNHUMUHAMMED, -DO- -DO- 3. V.P.KUNHEERYA, D/O.POCKER (LATE), -DO- -DO- 4. V.P.AYISHAKUTTY, -DO- -DO- 5. V.P.FATHIMAKUTTY, -DO- -DO- 6. V.P.AMINAKUTTY, -DO- -DO- 7. T.P.MOHAMMED ALI, S/O.MAMMU, THEYYAMPPILLIL HOUSE, PAIKANNUR, KUTTIPPURAM, TIRUR, MALAPPURAM. 8. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, POST MANJERI, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1988 OF 2008 ............................................. Dated this the 21st day of October, 2009 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Tirur in OP(MV)No.329/1998. The claimant, who sustained injuries in a road accident, died during the pendency of the petition and his legal representatives have been impleaded as supplemental claimants 2 to 6. After considering the materials, the Tribunal has passed an award for Rs.48,000/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and ordered recovery right in favour of the third respondent from respondents 1 and 2. It is against that decision, the owner has come up in appeal. 2. The reason for ordering reimbursement was on account of the fact that the person who drove the vehicle was a 14 year old boy and the owner of the vehicle was none other than his father. Under the Motor Vehicels Act, a person aged 14 years is not expected to drive a vehicle at all and when the father has entrusted the vehicle to be driven by such a person, then father has full knowledge : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1988 OF 2008 that the son did not have the driving licence and in fact, he had put the life of the public in peril. Therefore, there is breach of the policy conditions. The third party who is affected need not be directed to suffer and that is the reason why the amount was ordered to be paid by the insurance company and get it reimbursed from the owner. I do not find any error committed by the Tribunal. The appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl