IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 23RD FEBRUARY 2010 / 4TH PHALGUNA 1931 MACA.No. 2441 of 2008(G) -------------------------------- OPMV.623/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, IRINJALAKUDA ..................................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD, IRINJALAKUDA, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, OMANA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 -------------------------------- 1. M.K.DILEEP, MUKKULATH PARAMBIL HOUSE, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR. 2. JOHNSON, S/O.VARGHESE, PUTHUSSERY KATTALAN HOUSE, P.O.KARUVANNUR, PORATHUSSERY. ADV. SRI.RAJESH CHAKYAT FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23/02/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: sou. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2441 OF 2008 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 23rd day of February, 2010 J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the claims tribunal Irinjalakuda in O.P.M.V.623/02. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a compensation of Rs.7,300/- with 7% interest and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount. The Insurance Company had challenged the decision on the ground that the tribunal had not granted order of recovery from the owner at least. The learned tribunal has dealt with the case of the Insurance Company in para eight of the award. It observed that company has not produced documents. Police has registered petty case against the second respondent. It is also stated that this is a case where the company had admitted second respondent as a licensed driver. Therefore, the tribunal opined that in such a situation, it is incumbent up on the Insurance company to approach the concerned RTA to obtain necessary particulars to prove that second respondent has not obtained badge or that the badge obtained by him has expired on the date of accident. The court below held that by merely filing an application to direct the driver MACA.2441/08 2 to produce the driving licence is not sufficient. I totally agree with the observation and finding of the tribunal especially in the light of rule 3 75 of the Motor Rules in which it is stated that : “it shall be the responsibility of the insurance company to collect he particulars regarding the registered owner of the vehicle and the driving licence and submitted a report there on to the claims tribunal”. Now the Insurance Company has failed to discharge its part. I can not find fault with the tribunal on affixing the liability on the insurance company. Therefore, the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE sou.