IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI THURSDAY, THE 14TH OCTOBER 2010 / 22ND ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1019 of 2004() ----------------------- OPMV.367/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, METRO PLAZA, NORTH RAILWAY STATION ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 --------------- 1. SULAIMAN P.M., S/O. ABDULRAHIMAN, MISSIRIYA MANZIL, MUNAMKADAU, ATTARMUNDA, P.O. KUNDAMKUZHI, VIA. CHENGALA. 2. L.K. NAZAR, S/O. MUHAMMED, BELLA KADAPURAM, BELLA VILLAGE, P.O. KANHANGAD. 3. T. ABOOBACKER HASSAINAR, S/O. T. HASSAINAR, THACHANGAD P.O., PANAYAL, PALLIKKARA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A.1019 of 2004 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: OCTOBER 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal which is at the instance of the insurer of a vehicle which was involved in an accident is, whether the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal was justified in refusing to grant recovery right to the appellant. The case of the appellant is that the insured vehicle was used in violation of the policy conditions in as much as the owner had permitted the said vehicle to be driven by a person who did not possess a valid licence at the time of the accident. 2. The Tribunal while awarding a sum of Rs.63920/- as compensation to the claimant held that the appellant was liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle even though it was noticed that neither the owner nor the driver had produced the driving licence even on the face of the specific contention raised by the appellant that the driver did not possess a licence. In fact it was noticed by the Tribunal that the police had charge sheeted the driver under Sec.130 of the M.A.C.A.1019 of 2004 2 Motor Vehicles Act for driving the vehicle without possessing a valid licence. But still, the Tribunal took the view that the driver cannot be compelled to produce the licence. 3. Though notice has been served on the owner and the driver in this appeal, they have not chosen to appear. Respondent No.3 has in fact refused to accept the notice. 4. We have carefully perused the entire materials available on record. Having done so, we are satisfied that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be sustained. Therefore in modification of the above order it is held that the driver and the owner viz. respondents Nos.2 and 3 herein respectively, are liable to pay the compensation to the claimant. Since the appellant/Insurance Company has reportedly satisfied the award, it is made clear that it will be open to the appellant to recover the award amount from respondents Nos.2 and 3 . With that modification in the award, the appeal is allowed. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-