IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 1011 of 2010(G) ------------------------------------- [O.P(MV).NO.456/2005 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD] .................... APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.2: ------------------------------------------------ THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD, TALIPARAMBA BRANCH, P.O THALIPARAMBA. BY ADVS. SRI.K.K.M.SHERIF, SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENT NO.1: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RATHESH.E,S/O.MADHAVAN.E.V, "GEETHALAYAM",P.O PUTHUKAI,CHEDI ROAD, PUTHUKAI VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK. 2. JAFAR SADIQUE,S/O.ABDULLA,FATHIMA MANZIL, P.O PATTUVAM,MUTHUKADA,TALIPARAMBA TALUK. BY THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 05/10/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N.KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2010 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Kasaragod in OP (MV) No. 456/2005. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.35,500/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. When notices were tendered respondents 1 and 2 had unclaimed the same and therefore, their service is declared as sufficient. Even otherwise, the first respondent in the claim application namely, the owner had remained absent before the trial court also. 3. The short point that arises for determination in the appeal is regarding the right of re-imbursement to the insurance company. The materials available would show that the police has charge sheeted the rider of the bike for having driven the vehicle without a valid license. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is imperative that a person, who is driving the vehicle should have a M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2010 2 valid driving licence to drive that category of vehicle, which he was riding. The tribunal found that the accident had taken place on account of the negligence of the first respondent owner-cum-rider. So there cannot be any verification regarding the entrustment of a vehicle to a rider, who is having licence, since the owner himself who has no driving licence, had driven the vehicle against law. The insurance policy very clearly states that a person must be duly licenced inorder to come within the coverage under the policy. Therefore, I disagree with the tribunal and hold that the first respondent in the claim petition having driven the vehicle without valid driving licence had committed the breach of policy conditions especially being the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, insurance company is entitled to get re-imbursement of the vehicle. Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the award under challenge is modified making it clear that the insurance company has to deposit the amount and on satisfaction of the award, the insurance company is permitted to recover it from the owner by executing the very same award. This appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE ln