IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.M.JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS FRIDAY, THE 19TH JUNE 2009 / 29TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 410 of 2006 ------------------------------------- OPMV.830/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------------------- ISSAC GEORGE, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.I.C.VARKEY, IDIAYAKUNNAL HOUSE, KATTAPPANA SOUTH.P.O, KATTAPPANA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.K.R.SACHIDANANTHAN SRI.RENJITH B.MARAR RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JOSHY.T.K, S/O.KRISHNAMURTHY, THONDAGAZHIKKAL HOUSE, NELLIPARA KARA, THANKOMONY VILLAGE, UDUMBUMCHOLA THALUK. 2. ROY, S/O.JOSEPH MATHAI, VADANAYIL HOUSE, PARAKADAVU KARA, KATTAPPANA, UDUMBUMCHOLA, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KOTHAMANGALAM. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K. M. JOSEPH & M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JJ. -------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO. 410 OF 2006 C --------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th June, 2009 JUDGMENT Joseph, J. Appellant is the second respondent in OP(MV).No.830/01, which is a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, claiming compensation. According to the claimant, the appellant is the owner of the vehicle. The insurance was admitted. On this basis, originally an Award was passed permitting recovery of the amounts from the Insurance Company. Subsequently, there was an application for review. The original Award was reviewed and finding that there was no licence for the driver, the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amounts with liberty to recover the same from the owner. Hence this Appeal by the owner. 2. We heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the Insurance Company as also the driver. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that actually there was a valid licence MACA.410/06C 2 for his driver and the tribunal erred in reviewing the earlier Award and liberty should not have been given to recover the amounts from the appellant. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the Appeal is to be allowed. Learned counsel for the appellant was, in fact, asked to hand over copy of the licence and it is made available to the learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company also. There is no dispute that there was a valid licence. In such circumstances, we feel that the tribunal was in error. Accordingly, the Appeal is allowed and the direction that the third respondent Insurance Company can recover the amounts from the appellant is deleted. Sd/= K.M. JOSEPH, JUDGE Sd/= M. L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, JUDGE kbk. // True Copy // 03 PS to Judge