IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH AUGUST 2009 / 28TH SRAVANA 1931 MACA.No. 389 of 2003(C) ----------------------- OPMV.955/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- DR. T.M. ABRAHAM, THEKKUMKATTIL HOUSE, OPPOSITE ST.MARY'S HOSPITAL, IDUKKI ROAD, THODUPUZHA. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEW JOHN (K) SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS: -------------------------------------- 1. JAYARAJAN @ RAJU, S/O. K.G. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, KEECHERIL HOUSE, KANJIRAMATTOMM KARA, THODUPUZHA. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., THODUPUZHA BRANCH. ADV. SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL FOR R2 SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/08/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & C. K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 389 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 19th day of August, 2009 JUDGMENT Abdul Rehim, J. 1. The owner-cum-driver of a car involved in the accident, who was the first respondent before the Tribunal, is in appeal against the recovery rights permitted by the Tribunal to the insurance company. The vehicle involved in the accident was driven by the appellnt. The appellant was not holding valid driving licence at the time of the accident. Ext. B2 is the copy of the driving licence produced, which showed that its' validity expired on 19.5.1994, whereas the accident took place on 28.3.1995. But the driving licence was subsequently renewed about two months after the date of the accident. 2. Counsel for the appellant relied on a Full Bench decision of this Court in ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY V. POULOSE, (2004) 1 K.L.T. 8 (FB) in which it is held that even if licence had expired on the date of the accident, but was subsequently renewed, it will fulfill the mandate of the statute and insurer could not be absolved from liability to indemnify the insured in such a situation. But learned counsel appearing for the second respondent-insurance company 2 pointed out a subsequent decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in ISHWAR CHANDRA V. ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., (2007) 10 SCC 650, in which the honourable apex Court held that if the renewal of licence is not made within the statutory period permitted under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and Rules made thereunder, the insurance company will be absolved from liability to indemnify the insured. 3. In view of the decision of the honourable Supreme Court cited supra, we are not persuaded by the contention of the appellant that subsequent renewal of driving licence will cast liability on the insurance company. Further we notice that in another appeal filed by the Claimant from the very same award seeking enhancement of compensation (MACA 321/2003) this Court has already upheld the right of the insurance company for recovery of the amount from the first respondent (appellant in this case). Under the above circumstances, the appeal does not deserve merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (C. K. ABDUL REHIM) kk Judge. 3