IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.MOHANAN TUESDAY, THE 1ST JULY 2008 / 10TH ASHADHA 1930 MFA.No. 406 of 2003() --------------------- OPMV.511/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT: 3RD RESPONDENT ------------------------- NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED, HONAVAR NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, AJAI VIHAR, KOCHI-16. BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) RESPONDENTS: PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ------------------------------------------------ 1. PULLOLI SARASWATHI AMMA, W/O. KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, PULLOLI HOUSE, CHEMBILODE AMSOM, CHALA EAST DESOM, P.O.CHEMBILODE, KANNUR DISTRICT. 2. PULLOLI RAJAN, S/O.KRISHNAN NAMBIAR, DO. DO. 3. PULLOLI SHYAMALA, DO. DO. 4. PULLOLI VELAYUDHAN, DO. DO. 5. PULLOLI BABU, DO. DO. 6. PULLOLI RAJANI, DO. DO. 7. K.K.RAYIS, S/O.ALI, KOPPARAKALAM, ENNA VEETIL THAMASAM, KODIYERI AMSOM, PALLUR DESOM, NEAR PARAL PALLY, P.O.PARAL. 8. INTHRY SALVADOR RODRIGUES, MANDALKURUVA P.O. MAVINKURUVA, HONNAVAR TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.K.P.SARVOTHAMAN FOR R1TO6 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/07/2008, THE COURT ON 01/07/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & V.K.MOHANAN, JJ. .................................................................... M.F.A. No.406 of 2003 .................................................................... Dated this the 1st day of July, 2008. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. This is an appeal filed by the Insurance Company challenging MACT award whereunder the Tribunal declined to grant right to the Insurance Company to recover compensation from the owner of the vehicle on account of want of driving licence for the 7th respondent who caused the accident leading to the award. Inspite of notice, respondents 7 and 8 have not appeared in court. Counsel appearing for the claimants submitted that the appellant is bound to deposit the compensation amount and claimants are not opposing the right of the Insurance Company to recover the compensation from the owner, if the driver did not have a licence. The specific case of the Insurance Company before the MACT and before this court is that the driver at the time of accident did not have licence and therefore, under the policy the Insurance Company is not bound to pay the compensation. On the face of it, we feel the contention of the Insurance Company may be true because respondents 7 and 8 have not entered appearance either before the MACT or before this court to controvert the 2 claim of the company. Moreover, we are unable to agree with the finding of the MACT that the onus to prove want of licence is on the Insurance Company to disown liability. In fact, it is for the owner to establish that the driver had valid licence so that the policy commitment is honoured by the Insurance Company. We, therefore, allow the appeal by modifying the award authorising recovery of the compensation amount by the Insurance Company from the 8th respondent. However, in terms of several judgments of the Supreme Court and of this court, the appellant is bound to deposit the amount in terms of the award, if not already done, before the MACT for payment to the claimants. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge V.K.MOHANAN Judge pms