IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR MONDAY, THE 16TH MARCH 2009 / 25TH PHALGUNA 1930 MACA.No. 2314 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.262/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT IN OPMV:- -------------------------------------- RAMESH, VAKIPARAMPIL, KUMPALAPOIKA P.O. BY ADV. MR. ARUN.B.VARGHESE RESPONDENT/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN OPMV:- --------------- 1. SANTHOSH JOSEPH, NJALLATHUVAYALIL, ANAKKALLU P.., KANJIRAPPALLY. 2. SATHEESAN C, SATHEESH BHAVAN, ANGADICAL SOUTH P.O., KODUMON. 3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PATHANAMTHITTA. ADV. MR. LIJU.V.STEPHEN FOR R2 MR. LAL GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16/03/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, J. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2314 OF 2008 -------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 16th day of March, 2009 J U D G M E N T Petitioner is the first respondent in O.P.(MV)262 of 2000 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala. He was impleaded in the O.P(MV) as driver of autorikshaw KL-7U/ 636. First respondent is the claimant and second respondent the owner of autorikshaw and third respondent the Insurance Company. Appellant and second respondent remained exparte. Third respondent resisted the claim contending that though the autorikshaw was insured with them, appellant was not holding a valid driving licence and therefore for violation of policy conditions the Insurance company is not liable to indemnify the insured or pay the compensation. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as per award dated 13.10.2004 found that first respondent is entitled to a total compensation of Rs.17,350/-. Accepting the contentions of third respondent that appellant was not having a valid driving licence, third respondent was permitted to realise the amount from the appellant and second MACA.2314/08-F 2 respondent. The appeal is filed by the driver challenging the award. Appellant has produced a copy of the driving licence to prove that he was having a valid driving licence. 2. Third respondent is liable to pay the compensation as second respondent, the owner of the autorikshaw, had insured the autorikshaw with the third respondent. The liability of the third respondent is on account of the contract with the second respondent. There is no privity of contract between third respondent and the appellant, the driver of the autorikshaw. Therefore Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was not justified in holding that third respondent is entitled to realise the amount from the driver of the autorikshaw. Third respondent is only entitled to realise the amount from the second respondent, the insured. In such circumstances the appeal is allowed. The award providing that third respondent Insurance company is entitled to realise the amount from appellant driver is set aside. Third respondent is entitled to realise the amount only from second respondent. M. SASIDHARAN NAMBIAR, JUDGE okb