IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD NOVEMBER 2010 / 2ND AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1801 of 2010() ----------------------- (OPMV.550/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR) .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT --------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., METRO PALACE, GROUND FLOOR, OPP. NORTH RAILWAY STATION, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASST. MANAGER. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENTS/1ST & 2ND RESPONDENT & PETITIONER -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. NABEESA, W/O. SAIDALI, KUNDANI HOUSE, VARAMBANALA P.O., KALPAKANCHERI, TIRUR TALUK-676 101. 2. SHOUKATHALI, S/O. HUSSAIN, VALIYA KANDATHIL HOUSE, POOTHOTTAMPADI, OPPOSITE CANARA BANK, VALAVANNOOR P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 551. 3. KUNHIMARAKKAR, S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED, NALUKANDATHIL HOUSE, PARAMMALANGADI P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-676 551. R3 ADV. SRI.JAMSHEED HAFIZ THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/11/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: VK M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.1801 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 23rd day of November, 2010. 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.550/2008. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.70,120/= and the insurance company has been made liable to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. Heard. The grievance is that there is a specific contention raised in the written statement that the vehicle was driven without valid driving licence and therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay the compensation. The learned counsel for the insurance company would submit before me that there was a police charge under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. But from a perusal of the award, it can be seen that the learned Tribunal has just observed that the insurance company has not taken any steps to file an application to get particulars of the licence and therefore : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.1801 OF 2010 held against the company. I do not also understand what the Tribunal intended by stating that “3rd respondent has to pay the compensation to the petitioner at the first instance”. So things are not clear. If there is no valid driving licence, it is a valid defence for the insurance company because it will amount to breach of the policy conditions. 3. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity. The award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the licence aspect is concerned and all are permitted to adduce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions to prove the fact. Since the owner has not appeared before this Court, insurance company is directed to take steps to the owner and other persons as well for a proper disposal of the matter. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.12.2010. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.1801 OF 2010 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.1801 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.389 OF 2001 ............................................. 11th day of November, 2010. J U D G M E N T