IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 23RD JANUARY 2009 / 3RD MAGHA 1930 MACA.No. 202 of 2009() -------------------------- OPMV.2823/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2: ---------------------------------------------- 1. SABU, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, MOOLEPPALLIL HOUSE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM. 2. SHIBU, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.PEETHAMBARAN, MOOLEPPALLIL HOUSE, CHEMPU P.O., VAIKOM. BY ADV. SMT.P.M.SWAYAM PRABHA SMT.R.ASALATHA VARMA RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT AND 3RD RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDUL SALAM, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O.ABDUL AZEES, C.C.D.NO.3/413, UBAID ROAD, CHIRALI, KADAVU BHAGOM, MATTANCHERRY, KOCHI. 2. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, THRIPUNITHURA BRANCH, THRIPUNITHURA, ERNAKULAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 202 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(MV)2823/01. The claimant while walking along the side of a road sustained injuries on account of a hit by a motorcycle. According to the claimant the vehicle was driven by the 2nd respondent in the claim petition and therefore he has claimed a compensation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. Respondents 1 and 2 have filed a joined written statement and 3rd respondent a separate written statement. It is contended by respondents 1 and 2 that the motorcycle was driven by the first respondent and second respondent was travelling as a pillion rider. The Tribunal on an analysis of the materials held that the 2nd respondent was riding the motorbike and there was no valid driving licence for him and therefore directed the insurance company to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner of the vehicle namely M.A.C.A. 202 OF 2009 -:2:- first respondent. It is against that decision respondents 1 and 2 had jointly filed this appeal. 2. I am astonished to see that a brother who has filed a private complaint against the other brother which ends in conviction by way of pleading guilty defence an action in a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal jointly and that too by one and the same advocate. It has to be stated that a criminal action was initiated against the 2nd respondent and that came to an end in acquittal for want of proper identification. The matter did not end there. The 2nd respondent files a private complaint against the first respondent and on receipt of the summons the first respondent enters appearance pleads guilty and thereby receives a conviction. It is too difficult to believe such a case will happen under ordinary human course of conduct. Two brothers have joined together knowing fully well that in the absence of a driving licence the owner will be saddled with the liability. Even one moves the criminal Court for prosecuting the other brother. So all these things are done M.A.C.A. 202 OF 2009 -:3:- to manage an honourable exoneration of liability and I am totally satisfied that the Tribunal was perfectly justified in arriving at a decision that what is spoken to by them are absolutely incorrect. The claimant did not change side he only initiated a case against the 2nd respondent as the driver and I feel the Tribunal correctly found that the 2nd respondent was liable for the accident and the first respondent therein was vicariously liable for the act of R2. Further it is proved that there was no driving licence for the 2nd respondent which amounts to breach of policy conditions and so I find that there is nothing to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-