IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI FRIDAY, THE 3RD SEPTEMBER 2010 / 12TH BHADRA 1932 MACA.No. 628 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.126/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------- N.G.GOPI, S/O.GOPALAN, MALOTH HOUSE, THANKALAM, THRIKKARIYOOR P.O., KOTHAMANGALAM, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONER 1 TO 5 & RESPONDENT 2 & 3 ------------------------------------------------- 1. SAROJINI, W/O.DHARMARAJAN, PARUTHIYEZHATHU HOUSE, NEAR ANIYIL BRIDGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 2. RADHAKRISHNAN, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, PARUTHIYEZHATHU HOUSE, NEAR ANIYIL BRIDGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DIST. 3. PRADEEP, S/O.DHARMARAJAN, PARUTHIYEZATHU HOUSE, NEAR ANIYIL BRIDGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 4. SREEDEVI, D/O. DHARMARAJAN, PARUTHIYEZHATHU HOUSE, NEAR ANIYIL BRIDGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKALM DISTRICT. 5. SREEJA, D/O.DHARMARAJAN, PARUTHIYEZHATHU HOUSE, NEAR ANIYIL BRIDGE, EDAVANAKKAD, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 6. SHUKKOOR, S/O.ABDULKHADER, MANAPPURATH PARAMBIL VEEDU, THAMARAVATOM BHAGOM, EDAVANAKKAD P.O., ERNAKULAM DISTRICT. 7. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, SUB JAIL ROAD, ALUVA. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R7 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R7 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 03/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. Basheer & P.Q. Barkath Ali, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A. No. 628 of 2005-B - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 3rd day of September, 2010 Judgment Basheer, J: Appellant who is admittedly the registered owner of a vehicle involved in a road traffic accident that occurred on December 20, 1998, impugns the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarding compensation to the injured-victim in that accident. Appellant contends that the Tribunal was not justified in exonerating the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation on the ground that driver, respondent No.2 herein, did not hold a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. 2. It may at once be noticed that the appellant did not choose to contest the case before the Tribunal. According to him, he had transferred the vehicle in question to another person viz., Mr.Malik, S/o.Kunju Buhari of Kunnukara village in Ernakulam district, prior to the accident. But it is admitted by the appellant that going by the relevant records he remained to be the registered owner-cum-insured of the vehicle at the time of the accident. Anyhow, since the appellant did not appear before the Tribunal in response to MACA.628/2005. : 2 : the notice issued to him, this aspect was not brought to the notice of the Tribunal, even assuming the above contention is correct. 3. The driver contested the case. According to him, he possessed a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. He produced a certified copy of his driving licence which was marked in the case as Ext.X1. But the Insurance Company disputed the genuineness of the said licence. The Company, it appears, deputed RW.1 to go to the Regional Transport Office at Chennai which had allegedly issued the licence, to verify the records. RW.1 deposed before the Tribunal that though Ext.X1 was produced before the Transport Office with a request to issue an appropriate certificate indicating the genuineness of the licence, the Transport Officer did not respond. The Tribunal observed that in the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly in view of the evidence tendered by the Insurance Company through Rw.1, it can be assumed that respondent No.2 did not possess an effective and valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was therefore that the Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability to pay the compensation. 4. However learned counsel for the appellant submits that the view taken by the Tribunal cannot be justified, especially since there was nothing on record to indicate that Ext.X1 licence was MACA.628/2005. : 3 : forged or fabricated. He submits that the appellant is prepared to take necessary steps to show that the licence issued to respondent No.2 was genuine and valid by summoning the original records from the Transport Office concerned. In fact a photocopy of the driving licence that was allegedly issued to respondent No.2 is made available for our perusal. 5. Sri.Mathews Jacob, learned senior counsel who appears for the Insurance Company, submits that the appellant is not entitled to get a further opportunity to contest the case at this belated stage, especially since he had failed to appear before the Tribunal though admittedly he was served with notice. 6. However having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that appellant can be granted an opportunity, of course, on terms. 7. The case is remanded to the Tribunal on condition that the appellant pays a sum of Rs.15,000/- as costs to respondent No.3- Insurance Company. The cost shall be paid within six weeks from today failing which this judgment shall stand recalled. 8. The appellant shall take all necessary steps to establish that respondent No.2 did possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident. To put it differently, the entire burden to prove that respondent No.2 was holding a valid and MACA.628/2005. : 4 : effective driving licence as on the date of the accident shall rest on the appellant. Respondent No.2 shall also be entitled to adduce further evidence in support of his case, if he is so advised. 9. Further, it will be open to the appellant to implead the transferee of the vehicle, if any, before the Tribunal if he has a case that he had already transferred the same to a third party prior to the accident. Respondent No.3 shall also be entitled to adduce further evidence. 10. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case as expeditiously possible at any rate within 4 month from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. 11. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on September 28, 2010. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. A.K. Basheer Judge. P.Q. Barkath Ali Judge. an.