IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID TUESDAY, THE 21ST OCTOBER 2008 / 29TH ASWINA 1930 MACA.No. 168 of 2004() ---------------------- OPMV.1948/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT. ------------------------ KOTTAKANDY NAZAR, S/O.KUNHAMMED, AGED 39 YEARS, SABINA MANZIL, MUZHAPPILANGAD MADOM, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, KANNUR. 2. REETHA .K. D/O.KRISHNAN, KOCHANKANDY HOUSE, P.O. PONNIAM WEST, MALAL,' THALASSERY. ADV. SRI.KKM.SHERIF FOR R1 SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 21/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 168 OF 2004 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 21st day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle against that part of the award authorising the first respondent to recover the amount from the appellant after deposit of the amount in the MACT, pursuant to the award passed in favour of the second respondent. Even though vehicle was covered by valid policy, MACT directed recovery from appellant because, when the accident took place appellant did not have valid driving licence. Appeal is filed by the appellant based on decision of this Court whereunder subsequent renewal of licence was found to be sufficient for the owner-cum-driver to get out of the liability. However, counsel for the insurance company relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in ISWAR CHANDRA AND ORS. V THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., (2007) 3 Supreme 65, whereunder the Supreme Court has held that renewal of licence within 2 30 days of the expiry only will make the insurance company absolutely liable. Since appellant's licence had expired on 18.2.1995 and the accident was on 13.12.1995, that is long after the expiry of licence, appellant is not entitled to immunity from recovery as claimed by him. Consequently first respondent is entitled to recover the amount from the appellant in terms of the award. Appeal is therefore dismissed. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3