IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 18TH JANUARY 2010 / 28TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 2270 of 2009() ------------------------------------- OPMV.2673/2002 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ------------------------ SUGUNAN, S/O.RAVINDRAN, AGED 41, MAVUNGAL VELI VEETTIL, AROOR GRAMA PANCHAYATH WARD NO.17, AROOR, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. DR.V.N.SANKARJEE MR.V.N.MADHUSUDANAN SMT.R.UDAYA JYOTHI MR.M.M.VINOD RESPONDENT(S):PETITIONER/2ND RESPONDENT. ------------------------- 1. PANKAJAKSHY AMMA, AGED 65, W/O.CHANDRASEKHANRAN NAIR, KANNATT VEETTIL, THRICHATTUKULAM P.O.,VIA POOCHAKAL AND NOW RESIDING AT ARACKAL HOUSE, CHEPPANAM, PANANGAD P.O COCHIN-682 506, PANANGAD VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD, REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, PUTHENPURACKAL CHAMBERS, PALLURUTHY, COCHIN-6. R2 BY ADV. SMT.A.SREEKALA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON IA. NO.2645/2009 IN MACA NO.2270/2009 DISMISSED 18/01/2010 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.2270 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 18th day of January, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the order of the Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in OP(MV)No.2673/2002. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and she has been awarded a compensation of Rs.25,000/= with a direction to the insurance company to deposit the amount and recover it from the owner cum driver of the vehicle. 2. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal, the claimant died. I do not think that junction of the legal representatives of the claimant is necessary for the reason that the claimant’s case is settled by directing the insurance company to deposit the amount and so the only dispute is in between the owner cum driver and the insurance company on the point whether the insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount from the owner. 3. The court below found that the driver did have only learners licence and therefore held that there was no proper : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.2270 OF 2009 licence and directed reimbursement of the amount. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh (2004 (1) KLT 781) had considered about the impact of the learners licence in paragraph 86 of the judgment. The apex court held that learners licence is also a valid licence provided it satisfies the condition that a person who knows the driving is also accompanying the person who was riding the vehicle. This point had been raised by the appellant herein before the court in para-2 of the counter statement. The present appellant, according to him, did have a valid driving licence to drive an auto rickshaw, LMV,HGV and HPV besides a learners licence for driving two wheelers. It is alleged that he was riding when his friend, who was holding a valid licence, was accompanying . He has also given the name of the friend in the counter statement. Therefore the learned counsel would contend that an opportunity must be given to him to establish that fact. It is a point that requires consideration. 4. Therefore, the award so far as it relates to the : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.2270 OF 2009 right to recovery is concerned is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to the Tribunal to permit the owner cum driver and the insurance company to produce both documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions with respect to the inter se liability and then dispose of the matter in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.02.2010. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.2270 OF 2009