IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 3RD JUNE 2008 / 13TH JYAISHTA 1930 MFA.No. 489 of 2003(F) ------------------------------- OPMV.876/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: 4TH RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- C.GOUTHAMAN, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, CHEEPPILATT HOUSE, P.O. EDAKKAD, KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1,2,3,5 & 6: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. KALATHIL VELAPPIL RAMAN, S/O.KUNHAMAN, AGED 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHATHOTH HOUSE, CHIRAKKUTHAZHE, P.O. KIZHUNNA, KANNUR-7. 2. C.SAVITHRI, D/O. RAMAN, AGED 54 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 3. C.SURENDRAN, S/O. RAMAN, GED 51 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 4. C.SUDHAKARAN, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 5. C.SATHYABHAMA, D/O. RAMAN, AGED 44 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 6. C.PRAMOD, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 34 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 7. C.PRASANTH, S/O. RAMAN, AGED 29 YEARS, RESIDING AT -DO-. 8. K.V.MOHANAN, S/O. GOVINDAN, 'ANUGRAH', KADAMBOOR AMSOM, DESOM, P.O. KADAMBOOR (VIA) EDAKKAD. 9. P.V.SANTHOSH, S/O. KUNHIRAMAN, PALLA VEETTIL HOUSE, KADAMBOOR AMSOM, RIYARA DESOM, P.O. KADAMBOOR, (VIA) EDAKKAD. 10. NEW INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR. 11.CHEEPPILATT PRASAD @ KOTTU, S/O. BALAN, KADAMBOOR AMSOM, DESOM, KADAMBOOR P.O. 12. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KANNUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN SRI.A.C.DEVY - R.10 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.NO.54/2003 IN MFA.489/2003 DISMISSED 03/06/2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN //TRUE COPY // P.A. TO JUDGE. Rs/ M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.F.A. No. 489 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 3rd day of June, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred by the appellant/4th respondent in the claim petition against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thalassery, in OP(MV) No.876/96 permitting the 6th respondent Insurance company to get reimbursement of the award amount from the appellant. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend before me that the licence of the driver was produced before the Tribunal but it has not been considered by the Tribunal at all. The said submission appears to be correct for the reason that the case records shows the driving licence in the file. It would further show that one Prasad V. son of Balan had a valid driving licence from 6.2.93 to 23.5.96 with further permission to drive HGV and HPV vehicles with a badge from 8.2.95. Here the accident had taken place only on 17.4.96 . If the document is true, the contention of the Insurance Company that there was no valid licence for the driver cannot be sustained. But the document has not been marked and MFA No.489/03 2 evidence has not been adduced. It is only just and proper that an opportunity is given to the 4th respondent in the claim petition to get this document marked and to adduce evidence, if necessary, in support of his contentions. Therefore the finding of the Tribunal with respect to the order of reimbursement is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal for the limited purpose of proving the licence of the driver. The Insurance Company as well as the owner of the vehicle are permitted to adduce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. The Registry is directed to send the lower court records immediately. Parties are directed to appear before the court below on 21.7.08. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps