IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 434 of 2004 ------------------------------------ OPMV.175/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KASARAGOD .................... APPELLANT: APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------------------------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. REP.BY ITS ASST.MANAGER, KOCHI REGIONAL OFFICE, T.P.CELL, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. BY ADV. SMT.RAJI T.BHASKAR RESPONDENT/CLAIMANTS 1&2 AND RESPONDENTS 1&2 Respectively: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. YOUSUF, S/O.HASSAINAR, AGED 17 YEARS (MINOR), REP. LBY HIS FATHER HASSAINAR. 2. HASSAINAR, S/O.ABDULLA, AGED 55 YEARS, RESIDING AT SANTHIGIRI OF KODIBAIL VILLAGE, P.O.BEKUR, KASARGOD. (The second respondent is deleted from the party array as per order dated 24-6-2010 in IA 1502/10 at the risk of the appellant) 3. P.ABDUL RAHMAN @ ADHRUMA, S/O.IBRAHIM, RESIDING AT AVALA, KALLADUKKA. 4. DHANANJAYA POOJARY, S/O.KRISHNAPPA POOJARY, PADYANE HOUSE, KORAPPADY, BANTWAL TALUK, KARNATAKA. ADV. SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH FOR R1 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.434 OF 2004 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of October 2010 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This appeal is directed against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 2. The Tribunal directed the appellant/insurance company to pay a sum of Rs.71,100/- towards compensation to the claimant-respondent No.1 herein. The only grievance of the appellant is that the Tribunal was not justified in denying liberty to the appellant to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the vehicle, since he had permitted the driver to drive the vehicle though he did not possess a valid driving license and badge. 3. It is seen from the award that the appellant had taken a specific contention that it would not be liable to indemnify the owner, since his action was in violation of the policy conditions. The owner of the vehicle did not appear before the Tribunal and contest the case though he was served with notice. The driver in his counter statement contended that he was not negligent. It is also seen from the record that the appellant had filed I.A.358/02 seeking for a direction to the owner to produce the driving license and badge issued in favour of the driver of the vehicle. M.A.C.A.No.434 OF 2004 :: 2 :: But the owner did not produce these documents even though the interlocutory application was allowed. 4. We have carefully perused the materials available on record and heard learned counsel for the appellant. Respondents 3 and 4, the owner and driver, have not appeared before this court, though notice has been served through paper publication. 5. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are satisfied that the appellant has to be given liberty to recover the amount of compensation from the owner. We do so. The award is modified to the above extent. The appeal is allowed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes