IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 25TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 3RD ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 707 of 2003(P) ----------------------- OPMV.1647/1992 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------------------------- KALYANI, AYINIVALAPPIL HOUSE, K.K.LANE, POST POONKUNNAM AND DESOM, THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.T.A.RAJAGOPALAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER/2ND & 3RD RESPONDENTS: ------------------------------------------------ 1. AIPPURU, S/O. THAIKKATTIL, MATHUNNY, THIRUR DESOM, KILLANNUR VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK. 2. FRANCIS, S/O. KOLLANNUR ANTONY, VENGANISSERY DESOM, VELLUR VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BO'U BROTHERS BLDG., GURUVAYUR ROAD, KUNNAMKULAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 25/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.707 OF 2003 ===================== Dated this the 25th day of September 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur in O.P.(MV)No.1647 of 1992. The appellant before me is the alleged owner of the vehicle. The case had a checkered career and ultimately by a judgment in M.F.A.No.399 of 1998, a learned Judge of this Court specifically remitted the case to the court below for a fresh consideration on the limited question as to whether the driver did possess a valid driving license on the date of the accident. This Court also reduced the rate of interest from 12% to 9%. On remand, the Tribunal by its award dated 19.11.2002 held that the second respondent was no duly license for driving an auto rickshaw involved in the accident on the date of the accident. Therefore it directed the 3rd respondent to recover the amount deposited by them on satisfaction of the award from the first respondent, the owner of the vehicle in execution of the award itself. It is aggrieved by that decision, the first respondent has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant had raised various contentions MACA 707/2003 -:2:- including the dispute regarding the ownership of the vehicle. So far as the ownership of the vehicle is concerned, the matter would not have been considered by the Tribunal for the reason that the very purpose of remand was for only finding out regarding the existence of a valid license of the second respondent to drive the vehicle. So, at this length of time and against the scope for which the matter was remanded, this Court cannot reopen and entertain that pleading. Therefore the said argument is not accepted. Then the learned counsel would contend that the absence of a driving license has to be proved as the fundamental cause has to be the cause of accident. He had relied on the decision of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh(2004(1) KLT 781(SC). But as far as this case is concerned, at this stage, this Court is hearing an appeal in an award after order of remand made by this Court. This Court only directed the court below to answer the solitary question regarding the existence of a valid license. Therefore there cannot be further widening of the scope of remand in this case. 3. Now let me consider whether there was any valid license for the person. The driving license produced and which is marked as Ext.B7 would show that the driver did have a valid driving license from 28.6.1985 to 27.6.1988. The accident occurred on 27.10.1991. The driving license was MACA 707/2003 -:3:- not in force when the accident took place. So the Tribunal found that there was no valid license and so directed the insurance company to get the amount realised from the owner of the vehicle. This position has been considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in Ram Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd.(2008(3) TAC 769(SC) where the court held that “what would constitute a breach of conditions of contract of insurance-driver failed and neglected to renew his license-license renewed after accident only on and from 7th February, 1996-proviso appended to Section 15(1) clearly states that driving license shall be renewed with effect from date of its renewal in event application for renewal of a license is made more than 30 days after date of its expiry-driver cannot be said to be holding a valid license-insurer would not be liable to indemnify insured”. So applying this dictum it has to be stated that on the date of the accident there was no license and even if it had been renewed subsequently it will not validate the license for the reason that the license has not been renewed within 30 days as provided under the statute. From these discussions, I find that the award of the Tribunal does not call for any interference. So the appeal lacks merit and the same is MACA 707/2003 -:4:- dismissed. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-