IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 7TH DECEMBER 2010 / 16TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 955 of 2010() ---------------------------- OPMV.1886/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENT ----------------------------------- LALITHA KUMARI, LAGI NIVAS, KUTTANPERUR P.O., MANNAR. BY ADVS. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR) SRI.K.RAVI (PARIYARATH) RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS ------------------------------------------------------ 1. BALAKRISHNAN, PANIKOTTIL VEEDU, CHERUTHANA P.O., AYAPARAMBU. 2. PRADEEP KUMAR, ASARIPARAMBIL VEEDU, ORIPURAM MURI, CHENNITHALA. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REP.BY ITS DIVISIONAL MANAGER,KOLLAM. R3 BY ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELEVERED THE FOLLOWING: svs/ M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 7th day of December, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Mavelikara in O.P.(MV)No.1886/1999. The claimant sustained injuries in an accident and he has been awarded a compensation of Rs.61,660/= with 7.5% interest. The third respondent was directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the second respondent in the claim petition, who is the owner, as the driver has driven the vehicle without valid driving licence. It is challenging the same, the owner has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. The case attempted to be projected in the appeal is that the owner had entrusted the vehicle to a workshop and somebody from the workshop had driven the vehicle and that resulted in the accident. It is contended that there is no authorisation for the driver to drive the vehicle. I feel a totally different approach is taken in the appeal and it is totally against the pleadings in the written : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010 statement filed before the Tribunal. I had the opportunity to peruse the written statement filed before the Tribunal. What is stated therein is that the first respondent did have a valid driving licence and he had driven the vehicle with due care and it was on account of the negligence of the claimant, the accident took place. The second respondent also admits his ownership over the vehicle and says that it has been insured with the insurance company. There is absolutely no whisper regarding entrustment of the vehicle to the workshop or a case that some unauthorised person had driven the vehicle in order to cause the accident. No party can be permitted to travel beyond the pleadings and if such type of contentions are entertained in the appeal, it will result in miscarriage of justice and therefore the new contention attempted to be raised in the Memorandum of Appeal is really to be deprecated and it shall not be accepted. When it is so, the finding of the Tribunal makes it very clear that how the accident took place, who was negligent and that the driver did not have the valid driving licence. The Tribunal has granted a recovery right and nothing else. : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.955 OF 2010 It is perfectly justified in law. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the appeal. So the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.955 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