IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.RAMKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 MACA.No. 231 of 2009(E) ----------------------- OPMV.1186/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANTS/FIRST AND SECOND RESPONDENTS:- --------------------------------------------------------- 1. NASEEM , S/O. KHADIR, THANIKKUNNEL HOUSE, POTHANIKKADU VILLAGE, MAVUDY KARA. 2. ABDUL RAHIM, S/O. EBRAHIM, MUKALEL (H), PALLARIMANGALAM, KOTHAMANGALAM. BY ADV. MR. P.V.ELIAS RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND SECOND RESPONDENT:- ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ASHIQ 14 YEARS (MINOR), REPRESENTED BY HIS MOTHER AND LEGAL GUARDIAN SHYLAJA, W/O. ABDULKAREEM, MANGALATH (H), VARAPPETTY VILLAGE, PIDAVOOR KARA. 2. THE MANAGER ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., EDAPPILLY H.S. JUNCTION, COCHIN -24. ADV. MR. SIRAJ KAROLY FOR R1 MR. P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: V. RAMKUMAR , J. ========================== M.A.C.A. No. 231 of 2009 ========================== Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009. JUDGMENT Heard both sides. For the injuries sustained by the claimant in O.P (MV) No. 1186 of 2003 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs.16,590/-. Even though the autorickshaw driven by the 1st appellant and owned by the 2nd appellant was having a valid policy of insurance with the Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., since the appellants were ex parte before the Tribunal, the Tribunal took the view that the non-production of the driving licence by the 1st appellant herein before the Tribunal strengthened the case of the Insurance Company that the 1st appellant had no driving licence. Even though the Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to deposit the award amount, the insurer was allowed to recover the amount from the appellants herein. The appellants have come up in appeal alleging that the 1st appellant was having a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence. A copy of the driving iicence is produced before this Court in I.A. No. 1072 of 2009. M.A.C.A. No. 231/2009 : 2 : 2. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Insurance Company submitted that since the original driving licence has not been produced before this Court, the matter will have to be considered by the Tribunal before which the driver can produce evidence in support of his contention that he had a valid driving licence on the date of occurrence. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company also submitted that they will deposit the award amount before the Tribunal within one month from today, if not already deposited. I am not setting aside the award, but only relegating the question as to whether the driver had a valid driving licence for re-consideration by the Tribunal. Accordingly, maintaining the award, the question as to whether the driver was having a valid driving licence is relegated to the Tribunal below for re-consideration. In case the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the 1st respondent had a valid driving licence on the date of accident, then the Insurance Company will not be entitled to recover the award amount paid to the claimants. If on the other hand, the Tribunal comes to the conclusion that the driver had no valid driving licence, then the direction in M.A.C.A. No. 231/2009 : 3 : paragraph 25 of the impugned award will stand. The parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 22.06.2009. The revenue recovery proceedings, if any, initiated against the appellants shall be kept in abeyance and shall be subject to the final decision to be rendered by the Tribunal. Dated this the 1st day of June, 2009. V. RAMKUMAR, JUDGE. rv M.A.C.A. No. 231/2009 : 4 :