IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 10TH AUGUST 2010 / 19TH SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 568 of 2010() -------------------------------- OPMV.2273/2008 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PERUMBAVOOR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JAYAN,S/O.KRISHNAN. KANICHAYI HOUSE,VATTACHATTUPADY KARA, PERUMBAVOOR P.O., BY ADVS.SRI.R.MANOJ SRI.RAJESH VIJAYAN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT&RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. KUMARI.M.V.,W/O.THOMAS AGED 42 YEARS, MURINGAPILLY HOUSE,KARAYAMPARAMBU, ANGAMALY. 2. SOUTH EASTERN CARRIES LTD.942., POONOMALEE HIGH ROAD,CHENNAI-84. 3. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, PERUMBAVOOR, 4. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. BRANCH OFFICE, ELOOR ROAD, KALAMASSERYO, COCHIN. R2 BY ADVS. SRI.P.V.BABY, SRI.JOSHY THANNICKAMATTAM. R3 SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN R4 SRI.K.SANDESH RAJA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 10/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.739/2010 IN MACA. NO.568/2010 CLOSED 10/08/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.568 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 10th day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor in OP(MV)No.2273/2004. The first respondent therein is the appellant before me against whom a direction is given by the Tribunal for recovery from respondents 1 and 2 in the petition. The right to recovery was granted on the basis of the fact that the driver did not have valid driving licence to drive a two wheeler on the date of the accident. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant had made available before me for perusal one laminated duplicate and another laminated original and the real crux of the matter depends upon the endorsement made on the laminated duplicate. The reverse page would reveal that the appellant did have a valid licence to drive a two wheeler from 1982 to 2010. The accident had taken place in the year 2004 and therefore if the laminated document is true and correct, then one has to hold that the insurance company cannot get the right of recovery. But, the correctness of the same has to be : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.568 OF 2010 properly ascertained and it can be done by getting an authorised copy from the Regional Transport Authority. So I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 3. Therefore the award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the right to recovery is concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the appellant to produce true authenticated documents to convince the court regarding the existence of valid driving licence by the appellant on the date of accident. Parties are also permitted to adduce evidence and junction of the claimant is not necessary for the reason that he has already been compensated and paid by the insurance company. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 18.9.2010. Needless to say that till that time no recovery proceedings be initiated against the present appellant herein or continued till a final decision is taken in the matter. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.568 OF 2010 : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.568 OF 2010 M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... A.S.NO.OF 2010 ............................................. 2nd day of August, 2010. J U D G M E N T