IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI THURSDAY, THE 4TH AUGUST 2011 / 13TH SRAVANA 1933 MACA.No. 450 of 2011() ---------------------- OPMV.503/1998 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): -------------- WILSON JOSEPH, S/O JOSEPH, VADAKKANCHERRY HOUSE, MANJAPRA P.O. BY ADV. SRI.S.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. BIJU, S/O JOSE, AGED 24, PALLIPADAN HOUSE, PARAPURAM P.O., KANJOOR VIA. 2. PAULOSE, S/O MATHAI, ALUKA HOUSE, CHULLY KARA, AYYAMPUZHA VILLAGE, MANJAPRA P.O. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, ANGAMALY. 4. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, ALWAYE. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R4 SMT.A.SREEKALA FOR R-3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/08/2011, ALONG WITH MACA NO.998 OF 2011 THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R.BASANT & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. * * * * * * * * * * * * * Crl.M.Appl.Nos.765 & 1549 of 2011 and M.A.C.A.Nos.450 & 998 of 2011 ---------------------------------------- Dated this the 4th day of August 2011 COMMON ORDER/JUDGMENT R.BASANT,J These appeals are directed against a common award. The owner of the vehicle is the appellant. The Tribunal found that on the date of the accident there was a valid policy of insurance in respect of the vehicle insured by the 3rd respondent - New India Assurance Company. But it was found that the driver of the vehicle does not have a valid driving licence. Therefore, the Tribunal passed the common award in favour of the claimants and directing the 3rd respondent insurer to pay the amount. However, direction was issued under Section 149(4) of the Motor Vehicles Act entitling the 3rd respondent to recover the amount from the appellant herein that is the owner of the vehicle. Before the Tribunal, admittedly, the driving licence was not produced. Evidently, active efforts are afoot on the part of the 3rd respondent now to recover the amount from the appellant herein. It is at this juncture that these appeals have been filed M.A.C.A No.450 & 998 OF 2011 2 along with applications to condone the delay exceeding 2600 days. 2. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company vehemently opposes the application. The learned counsel submits that there is absolutely no justifiable reasons to condone such long and inordinate delay. 3. The learned counsel for the appellant, on the contrary submits that the court should not lose sight of the interests of justice. It is true that there was an omission on the part of the appellant and his driver to produce the original driving licence before the court below. The driving licence was really valid and was in existence at the relevant time. The original of the driving licence is produced. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the 3rd respondent is not now able to stipulate whether the driving licence is valid or not. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent submits that the delay may not be condoned. If at all condoned, the Tribunal may be directed to consider the question afresh. Detailed contentions will have to be raised before the Tribunal if such a further opportunity were given by this Court indulgently to the appellant, submits the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent, Insurance Company. M.A.C.A No.450 & 998 OF 2011 3 4. Primary commitment of all courts at all times is to the cause of the justice. If, as a matter of fact, there was a valid driving licence and it was an innocuous omission on the part of the owner and driver to produce that licence, we are certainly in agreement that the delay, if possible, should be condoned and the appellant must be given a further opportunity to contest the proceedings. For such luxury of a further opportunity, the appellant can be put to appropriate terms. 5. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that a lenient view can be taken and the delay can be condoned. We may state specifically that there is no dispute specifically raised before us now about the validity of the driving licence on the date of the accident. That persuades us to hold that a further opportunity can be given to the appellant by putting the appellant to appropriate and strict terms. 6. These petitions for condonation of delay and the appeals are consequently allowed subject to conditions. The delay is condoned and the appeal shall stand disposed on condition that the amount of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) in each appeal deposited before the Tribunal under Section 173 (1st proviso) shall be released by the Tribunal M.A.C.A No.450 & 998 OF 2011 4 to the 3rd respondent as cost. The impugned common award is upheld in all respects. But the Tribunal is directed to consider the prayer for issue of directions under Section 149(4) of the M.V.Act afresh. The present direction is set aside. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 01/09/2011 to continue the proceedings. 7. The Registry shall forthwith communicate this judgment to the Tribunal. The original of the driving licence produced by the appellant shall be returned to the appellant forthwith for production before the Tribunal. (R.BASANT, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) jsr // True Copy// PA to Judge M.A.C.A No.450 & 998 OF 2011 5 M.A.C.A No.450 & 998 OF 2011 6 K.M.JOSEPH & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. .No. of 200 ORDER/JUDGMENT 30/082010