IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 2753 of 2009() ------------------------------------ OPMV.2469/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------ CHELLAPPAN P.K., AGED 57, S/O. KUTTAPPAN KARAYIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM P.O., MORAKKALA, PERUMBAVOOR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.GEORGE (PUTHIYIDAM) RESPONDENTS/COMPLAINANT & 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. JAMAL P.M., S/O. MOHAMMED, PALLICKAL HOUSE, KANGARAPADI , VADAKODE P.O., THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNUR TALUK. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD, REP. BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER, BRANCH OFFICE, ERNAKULAM. R2 BY ADV. SMT.R.REMA. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: rs. M.N.KRISHNAN,J. ========================= M.A.C.A. No.2753 of 2009 ====================== Dated this the 28th day of May 2010. JUDGMENT This is an appeal preferred against the award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in O.P.(M.V) No.2469/2004. The claimant while driving a two wheeler met with an accident when it was hit by a vehicle which belonged to the appellant. After considering the entire materials, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs.68,653/- and directed the Insurance Company to pay the amount and thereafter recover it from the owner cum driver for the reason that there was no valid driving licence for him at the time of accident. It is against that decision the owner-cum-driver has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel and argued the following points:- (i) That there was negligence on the part of the petitioner in the claim petition. M.A.C.A. No.2753 of 2009 2 (ii) The quantum awarded is excessive. (iii) The finding of the tribunal for reimbursement is incorrect. 3. So far as the negligence aspect is concerned, it is true that none of the parties had mounted up the box to give evidence. It is also true that claimant did not have a valid driving licence to drive a two wheeler. The investigating agency after due investigation has filed a charge sheet against the appellant herein and that is the document made available before the Tribunal. In the absence of materials especially in the back drop of the charge sheet, I decline to interfere with the finding of negligence in this case. 4. The next question is regarding compensation. A perusal of the award would reveal that the claimant had sustained trochanteric fracutre of the femur, hip and lacerated wound on the parietal region. He was admitted on 10.3.2004 and discharged on 16.3.2004 and he had spent Rs.25,153/- towards treatment expenses. The claimant was granted 4 months loss of earning at the rate of Rs.3,000/-. In the absence of materials of long treatment, I reduce it M.A.C.A. No.2753 of 2009 3 by Rs.2,000/- and make it Rs.10,000/-. Similarly no document is seen produced to prove disability. Adequate compensation had been given for loss of earning and pain and suffering. Therefore, for discomforts and inconveniences, I reduce the compensation by Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the claimant would be entitled to Rs.61,653/- instead of Rs.68,653/-. 5. Lastly, on the question of driving licence. The appellant who had a driving licence. But it expired and it was renewed only after the accident was over, that too after the statutory period of 30 days. The matter has been considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Company Limited V. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala, ((2008) 12 SCC 701). The very same question that is canvassed before me is considered by Apex Court. The Court held that disputed driver did not have a valid driving licence on the date of accident, but it is renewed. Subsequently, it was held that of the Insurance Company would have no liability in this case of this nature. So Apex Court made it very clear that if the accident had taken place within the grace period of 30 days, then when M.A.C.A. No.2753 of 2009 4 renewed it will relate back to the date of expiry. But in cases where it is renewed after 30 days it will have effect only from the date of renewal. So as the renewal in this case is after expiry of 30 days, the driver did not have a valid driving licence and therefore, it amounts to breach of policy conditions which entitles the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the owner. Therefore, the appeal is disposed of as follows:- The award passed by the Tribunal is modified refixing the compensation at Rs.61,653/- with 7% interest on the said sum from the date of petition till realisation and the respondent are liable. The Insurance Company shall deposit the amount and thereafter recover from the owner of the vehicle the said amount by execution of the very same award. M.N.KRISHNAN,JUDGE. mns