IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN MONDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2008 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 948 of 2005() ---------------------- OPMV.1279/2001 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, N.PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT(S): APPELLANT/RESPONDENT NO.1. ---------------------------------------- K.KRISHNAN, S/O.KADUNGI, KILIVAYIL HOUSE, IRINGALLOOR POST, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.VINOD VALLIKAPPAN RESPONDENT(S): RESPONDENT. -------------------------- 1. PRASAD, S/O.SUKUMARAN, THARAKKANDATHIL HOUSE, KUNTHITHAI POST, NORTH PARAVOOR. 2. SUDHEER @ SUDHEER KUMAR, S/O.KRISHNADASAN, SHEEBA NILAYAM, NEAR WELL HOSPITAL, RAMANATTUKARA. 3. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, KOZHIKODE. ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) FOR R3 SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.A.C.A. 948/05 ORDER ON I.A.NO. 1804/05 IN M.A.C.A.NO. 948/05 DISMISSED. SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 15.12.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 948 OF 2005 --------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur in O.P.(MV) No.1279/2001. It is the case of the claimant that due to rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, the bus driver hit on the rear side of the car which resulted in damages to the car and sustainment of injuries to the claimant. The tribunal found that the accident took place on account of the negligent driving by the 2nd respondent. The tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 51,900/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and recover it from the owner and it is against that decision the present appeal is filed. 2. Heard the counsel for the Insurance Company and perused the award. It is contended before this court that the driver did have a valid driving licence and the vehicle a permit on the date of the accident and therefore the tribunal's finding that there was no driving licence and valid permit is not correct and M.A.C.A.No. 948/2005 -2- therefore it requires interference. It is also stated in the memorandum of appeal that the driving licence could not be produced for the reason that it was produced before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Parappanangadi. The valid permit of the vehicle was produced before the court as per order in I.A, but as there was no representation, it was not marked. Along with the memorandum of appeal Annexure A1 is produced to show that there was a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. It is only a photocopy. It cannot be relied on at this stage without proof, but if there is really a driving licence and a valid permit certainly the appellant herein is entitle to succeed in this contentions. Therefore I feel an opportunity can be granted so far as it relates to the right of recovery is concerned and for that purpose I am inclined to grant an opportunity to the appellant. Therefore the M.A.C.A. is partly allowed and the award with respect to the right of recovery by the Insurance Company is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the tribunal for fresh consideration and the appellant is given an opportunity to file a written statement, produce original of the licence and permit and M.A.C.A.No. 948/2005 -3- also adduce oral evidence. Needless to say, the Insurance Company be also permitted to raise additional evidence if they want and produce documents in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the tribunal on 15.1.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm