IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 2ND JANUARY 2009 / 12TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1798 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.709/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT ----------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD. KOTHAMANGALAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER., REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. T.CHANDRAN, S/O. V. THALAVAN, STAFF QUARTERS, FACTORY DIVISION,DEVIKULAM ESTATE K.D.H. VILLAGE. 2. IYYA DURAI.R. KANNY MALAI ESTATE, LOWER DIVISION TATA TEA LTD MUNNAR. ADV. SRI.T.J.MICHAEL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 02/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A.No. 1798/2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 2172/2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 1798/2008 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. 02.01.2009 //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 1798 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of January, 2009 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in O.P.(MV) No.709/2004. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident while he was riding his motorcycle. It is his case that an autorickshaw bearing Reg. No. KL. 7S/5504 came from the opposite direction and hit on the motorbike resulting in injuries to the claimant. The Insurance Company had raised a contention that the petition is bad for non jointer of parties and the accident had taken place on account of the rash and negligent driving of the claimant and further, the driver of the autorickshaw did not have a valid driving licence. When there is a collision between two vehicles, it is necessary to have the drivers on the party array for a proper adjudication of the matter. This has been specifically laid down by the apex court recently. So it is necessary to have the autorickshaw driver on the party array for the purpose of proper adjudication of the case. The confusion does not end there. The name of the driver as per the records is shown as Kumar where as in Ext. A5, the name of the driver is shown as M.A.C.A. No. 1798/2008 -2- Marichamy, S/o. Rajaih. Further a perusal of the charge sheet would reveal that the driver of the autorickshaw did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and so petty case is registered against him. Unfortunately, the tribunal only relied on Ext. A5 wherein the name of the driver shown is to a different person and held that the Insurance Company has failed to prove the absence of valid driving licence. The matter requires re- adjudication in total except the quantum. 2. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside and the claimant is directed to implead the autorickshaw driver and reconsider the question of negligence. Then also the question of liability of the Insurance Company in the backdrop of the contention regarding the driving licence. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 12.2.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm