IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 9TH DECEMBER 2010 / 18TH AGRAHAYANA 1932 MACA.No. 1070 of 2010() ----------------------------------- OPMV.94/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NEYYATTINKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT: ------------------------------------------- 1. SURESHKUMAR, S/O.MADHAVAN NADAR, MANNARAKANDAM PUTHEN VEEDU, KOTTUKALKONAM, BALARAMAPURAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. K.CHANDRAN, S/O.KRISHNAN CHETTIYAR, VARUVILAKATHU VEEDU, VANIYAR THERUVU, VANIYAR THERUVU, BALARAMAPURMA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. SUDHEER, S/O.SHAIK MAIDEEN, PANANKALA VEEDU, NEAR KALINGAVILAKOM LEKSHAM VEEDU, POOVAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.SUDHEER KARAKONAN THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 09/12/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: sts M.N.KRISHNAN, J -------------------------------- M.A.C.A.NO.1070 OF 2010 ------------------------------------------- Dated this the 9th day of December, 2010 JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal Neyyattinkara in OP(MV) No.94/2004. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a compensation of Rs.52,220/- and the insurance company has come up in appeal challenging the correctness of the liability as well as the disability. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the respondents. The insurance company not only contends for exoneration of the liability, but also for reducing the quantum. According to the insurance company the driver did not have a valid badge on the date of accident and therefore, it amounts to breach of policy condition and so the insurance company is not liable. The tribunal relied upon Ext.A5 driving licence and held that he had a badge also from 28-02-2003. The learned counsel for the insurance company had to made available the extract of the driving licence particulars of Sri.Sudheer issued by the Assistant Licensing Authority of RT Office, Neyyattinkara. It would reveal that he had obtained M.A.C.A.NO.1070 OF 2010 2 licence for non transporting vehicles from 28-02-2005 to 27-02-2008. The old transport vehicle validity was from 12-05-2005 to 11-05-2008. If these documents are reliable and acceptable then the date of accident being 29-09-2003 there was no valid badge for the driver to drive the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has made clear that under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act unless the person is holding a licence which enables him to drive the vehicle which he was using it will amount to breach of policy conditions. Therefore, this is a matter which requires reconsideration. It is also contended by the insurance company that even without proper proof of disability the tribunal has assessed the disability and granted the compensation. Any how, as the matter has to go back let it be also reconsidered by the tribunal. I make it clear that if something more is to be assessed that the compensation is to be given on that basis. Therefore, the award under challenge is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. It is also made clear that the insurance company has to take out notice to the respondents in the case, other M.A.C.A.NO.1070 OF 2010 3 than the claimant as he has appeared before the court for further proceeding with the trial. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 17-01-2011. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE pm