IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH AUGUST 2010 / 21ST SRAVANA 1932 MACA.No. 2553 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.975/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE, THAZHEPALAM, TIRUR. BY ADV. SRI.RAJAN P.KALIYATH RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT, R1,2,4 & 5: ------------------------------------------------------------- 1. V.K.BASHEER, S/O.MUHAMMED, VETTIYAN KAVIL HOUSE, AMBAL, VALIYAKUNNU POST, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 2. FAISAL, S/O.ABDULRAHIMAN, KOTTA PUNCHAYIL HOUSE, IRIMBILAYAM POST. 3. ANISH, S/O.SASIDHARAN, PUNKUZHI PALLIYALIL HOUSE, IRIMBILIYAM POST. 4. JOSEPH JACOB, ADVOCATE, KYNADI, KUTTANAD HOUSE, BANK ROAD, CALICUT DISTRICT. 5. SHEREEF CHAKKITTAKKUNNU, KUNNUMAL, KOODATHAI POST,THAMARASSERY. R1 BY ADVS. SRI.T.K.SAIDALIKUTTY, SMT.ANITHA M.N. (EKM). R4 BY ADV. SRI.TOM K.THOMAS THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/08/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A.No.2553 OF 2009 --------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 12th day of August, 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Tirur in O.P.(MV) 975 of 2005. The claimant, who sustained injuries in a road accident, has been awarded a compensation of Rs.88,470/- and Insurance Company has been ordered to pay the amount. The Insurance Company has come up in appeal. The contention of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company is to the effect that the driver did not have a valid driving licence which amounts to breach of policy conditions and, therefore, the Insurance Company is at least entitled to get right of recovery from the owner. The matter has been considered by the Tribunal in paragraph 14 of the award. It is true that Insurance Company moved an application for the production of licence by the 1st respondent. It also moved application for calling up the 4th respondent who permitted to drive the first respondent without a licence. But, admittedly the 5th respondent was the owner. No steps were taken against him. It is the duty of the Insurance Company to satisfy the conscience of this Court regarding the non availability of the licence. They M.A.C.A.No.2553 OF 2009 2 can prove it by producing materials or by adducing evidence. Therefore, I am inclined to grant an opportunity so far as it relates to the recovery is concerned. Therefore, award under challenge is set aside to consider whether there was a valid driving licence for the driver and regarding breach of policy conditions. The matter is remitted back to the Tribunal with a direction to permit all concerned to produce documentary evidence and adduced evidence to decide that question. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 23.9.2010. The Insurance company shall take out notice to respondents 1, 4 and 5 in the claim petition after it enters appearance before the Tribunal. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE. mns