IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH APRIL 2011 / 16TH CHAITHRA 1933 MACA.No. 235 of 2004() ---------------------------- OPMV.571/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, TIRUR .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT ------------------------------------ M.AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, S/O.MOIDEEN, MANAGING PARTNER, FEROK PETROLEUM AGENCY, VENGARA, (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) BY ADV. SRI.K.RAMACHANDRAN RESPONDENT/PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 3 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. AMINA, W/O.MOOSA, AGED 35 YEARS, APARAMBIL HOUSE, ARANTHAVOOR AMSOM.P..O., ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) 2. MUNEER BABU, S/O.LATE MOOSA, AGED 19 YEARS, DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER APARAMBIL AMINA W/O.MOOSA ANANTHAVOOR AMNSOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPURAM DIST.) 3. ASKARALI, S/O.MOOSA, AGED 17 YEARS DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER APARAMBIL AMINA W/O.MOOSA ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT). 4. SAMEERA, D/O.LATE MOOSA 15 YEARS DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER APARAMBIL AMINA W/O.MOOSA ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM.P.O.ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPUTAM DISTRICT) svs ............2/-... ...2... MACA.NO.235/2004 5. SHOBEER BABU, S/O.LATE MOOSA, AGED 11 YEARS DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER APARAMBIL AMINA W/O. MOOSA ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) 6. JEMSHEER SABU, S/O.LATE MOOSA, AGED 10 YEARS DO. DO. REP. BY GUARDIAN MOTHER APARAMBIL AMINA W/O.MOOSA ANANTHAVOOR AMSOM, P.O.ANANTHAVOOR (MALAPPURAM DISTRICT) 7. KALLINGAL SAIDALAVI, S/O.MOHAMMED, P.O.PUTHANANGADI, VENGARA. 8. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED BRANCH OFFICE, CATHOLIC CENTRE-UP HILL, MALAPPURAM. R8 BY ADVS. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN SRI.RAJIT THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 06/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: svs A.K. BASHEER,J. & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, J. ------------------------------------ M.A.C.A No. 235 OF 2004-B ------------------------------------ DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF APRIL, 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J: The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal, which is at the instance of the registered owner of the vehicle that was involved in a road traffic accident, is whether the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was justified in fastening the ultimate liability to pay compensation on the appellant. 2. The Tribunal while passing the award found that the driver of the vehicle owned by the appellant did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. This finding was entered since the driver did not contest the case and the driving licence was not produced, even though a direction was issued by the Tribunal on a petition filed by the Insurance Company in this regard. 3. Shri. K. Ramachandran, learned counsel for the MACA No.235/2004 -2- appellant submits that the Tribunal has drawn the above conclusion without properly adverting to the relevant facts and circumstances of the case. He points out that the police had not chargesheeted the driver for the offence punishable under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 4. It may be true that the driver was not tried by the Criminal Court though he was chargesheeted for the offences punishable under Section 279 and 304 (A) of the Indian Penal Code. It is on record that the driver had been absconding and the case has been consigned to the Long Pending Cases Register. In this context it has to be noticed that the driver did not chose to appear before the Tribunal and contest the case though he was served with a notice. But, the contention of the learned counsel is that in the absence of any cogent and satisfactory evidence to substantiate the case of the insurance company that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence, it was not proper and just on the part of the Tribunal to hold that the driver did not possess a valid licence. We do not propose to MACA No.235/2004 -3- deal with the above contention or make any observation in this regard at this stage in view of the order that we propose to pass. 5. It is true that the appellant raised the contention that there was no negligence on the part of the driver in causing the accident. Learned counsel submits that the appellant may be in a position to trace out the driver and get the licence produced through him before the Tribunal. Having regard to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the appellant can be granted an opportunity to do so; but only on terms. 6. The award passed by the Tribunal to the extent it has fastened the liability to pay compensation on the appellant shall stand set aside on condition that the appellant deposits a sum of ` 5,000/- towards cost payable to the Insurance Company. The cost shall be deposited within 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, failing which the appeal will stand dismissed. 7. If the cost is deposited, the Tribunal shall MACA No.235/2004 -4- re-consider the question of liability to pay the compensation to this claimant, after affording sufficient opportunity to the appellant, the driver and the Insurance company. It is made clear that the quantum awarded by the Tribunal shall not be re-opened or re-considered. The Tribunal shall dispose of the case, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, on or before August 31, 2011. The statutory deposit of Rs.25,000/- shall not be released to the appellant till the disposal of the case. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on May 16, 2011. Sd/- A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE. Sd/- P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE. AMG True copy P.A to Judge