IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2009 / 31ST BHADRA 1931 MACA.No. 1219 of 2008() ----------------------------------- OPMV.742/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1 ----------------------------------------------- ASOKAN, PARAMADU VEEDU, VADACODU P.O. KANGARAPADY, ERNAKULAM - 683 565. BY ADV. MR.K.SUNILKUMAR RESPONDENTS/ PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS NOS 2 & 3 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. MASTER VISHNU, AGED 11 YEARS, S/O.SURESH, SREE NIVAS, DESOM, ALUVA, MINOR REP. BY HIS MOTHER BEENA SURESH, W/O.SURESH, SREE NIVAS, DESOM, ALUVA. 2. THOMSON JOY, S/O.JOY, PADIKKAPPARAMBU HOUSE, NEAR BRAHMAMANGALAM HIGH SCHOOL, CHEMBU, VAIKOM. 3. M/S.NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, WISDOM COLLEGE BUILDING, CHITTOOR ROAD, COCHIN - 682 016. R3 BY ADV. MR.P.JAYASANKAR. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 22/09/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1219 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in O.P.(MV)742/04. The claimant was a pillion rider in an auto rickshaw and when it reached the place of accident the auto rickshaw was hit by a motorbike ridden by the 2nd respondent and owned by the first respondent. The Tribunal found the rider of the motorcycle negligent and directed respondents 1 to 3 to pay the amount jointly and severally and as the driver did not have a valid driving licence ordered reimbursement of the amount from the owner of the vehicle. It is against that decision the owner has come up in appeal. A perusal of the award, i.e. paragraph 10 would reveal that the 2nd respondent did not file any written statement denying the fact that there was no valid driving licence for him. The owner has also not taken any steps to produce the driving licence. It is also seen that as per the charge sheet a M.A.C.A. 1219 OF 2008 -:2:- petty case was registered because the rider of the motorbike was driving the vehicle without any driving licence. Even in the appeal memorandum it is stated that the rider has told him that he has got the licence but no attempt is made to show that there was a valid driving licence. The rider in spite of notice has not appeared before the Court below also. So prima facie discharge of burden showing that there was no valid driving licence for the rider of the motorcycle is established by filing of a petty case against him and the enquiry of the investigating agency. Since that is the position I cannot find fault with the Court below in directing the owner to reimburse the amount to the insurance company for the reason that there was breach of policy conditions. Therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-