IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 2ND APRIL 2009 / 12TH CHAITHRA 1931 OP.No. 26326 of 2002(H) ----------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. ARUMUGHAN, S/O. KRISHNAN, CHIMBUKOLAMBU HOUSE, ERATTAKKULAM, ELAPPULLY, PALAKKAD DISTRICT. 2. ANILKUMAR, S/O. BALAKRISHNAN, ANIL VIHAR, MAYAPURAM, KHONI, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.T.M.SUNIL SMT.S.CHITHRA RESPONDENT(S): --------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., SHOBHA TSM COMPLEX, V.H. ROAD, PALAKKAD. ADV. S.C. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE SRI.JACOB MATHEW THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/04/2009, THE COURT ON 02/04/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: O.P.No. 26326/02. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN O.P.MV.NO.591 & 592/96 DTD.21.4.01. P2 -DO- 1586/95 DTD.29.1.02. Sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 26326 of 2002 ================== Dated this the 2nd day of April, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioners are the owner and the driver of a stage carriage bearing Registration No.KRF 2631. While the 2nd petitioner was driving that vehicle, an accident occurred, out of which, three motor accidents claims arose, which were O.P(M.V).Nos. 1586/1995, 591/1996 and 592/1996 on the files of the MACT, Palakkad. Unfortunately for the petitioners, these cases were not tried together. O.P(M.V). No.591/1996 and 592/1996 were heard and disposed of by Ext.P1 award, in which, on a finding that the 2nd petitioner did not have a valid licence on the date of accident, the insurance company was exonerated from the liability. But, in O.P.(M.V.).No.1586/1995 the petitioners produced the driving licence of the 2nd petitioner, which was accepted and compensation awarded was directed to be paid by the insurance company. The petitioners' contention is that since the driving licence was produced in O.P(M.V.).No.1586/1995, they could not produce the same in the other two O.P(M.V.)s., which resulted in Ext.P1 award. Although the Motor Vehicles Act provides for an appeal against the awards of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals, in view of the bar under Section 173, since the amount award is within Rs.10,000/- the petitioners are unable to file an appeal against Ext.P1 award. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioners have filed 2 this original petition challenging Ext.P1 award to the extent it directs the petitioners to pay the compensation amount absolving the insurance company from the liability to indemnify the owner. The petitioners, therefore, seek the following reliefs: “(i) issue a writ of certiorari any other appropriate writ order or direction setting aside or quashing Exhibit P1; and/or (ii) set aside the finding in Exhibit P1 as regards the license of the 1st petitioner and direct the respondent to pay the amount of compensation awarded to the claimants; and (iii) issue a writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondent to pay the compensation granted in Exhibit P1 to the claimants;” 2. The prayers of the petitioners are stoutly opposed by the counsel for the respondent-insurance company. It is submitted that the fact that in Ext.P2 it was found that the insurance company is liable, that does not necessarily mean that the 2nd petitioner had a valid driving licence. In the other two O.P(M.V)s. the insurance company took the specific plea that the driver did not have a licence on the date of accident and the petitioners could have very well produced evidence to prove otherwise, which they have not done. Therefore, Ext.P1 cannot be interfered with, is the contention raised by the insurance company. 3. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 4. Since in respect of the same accident there are two conflicting awards on the question of liability of the insurance company, I thought that it would be a travesty of justice, if the 3 conflicting awards are allowed to stand. Therefore, I perused the driving licence of the 2nd petitioner, which was produced by the counsel for the petitioners. The counsel for the insurance company also perused the same. From the same, I find that the 2nd petitioner had a valid licence on the date of accident viz., 31.5.1995. In view of that, I am inclined to interfere with Ext.P1 award to the extent it holds that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the 1st petitioner for the damages awarded in Ext.P1 award on the only ground that the 2nd respondent did not have a valid driving licence. Accordingly, Ext.P1 is modified to the extent of holding that the insurance company is liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. If the petitioners have already paid the amount, the insurance company shall refund the same to the petitioners within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment. If the petitioners have not yet paid the said amount, the insurance company shall deposit the amount before the MACT, Palakkad, within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this judgment, which shall be disbursed to the claimants in the O.P(M.V)s. The original petition is allowed as above. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 26326 of 2002-H ================== J U D G M E N T 2nd April, 2009