IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARUN-UL-RASHID WEDNESDAY, THE 29TH OCTOBER 2008 / 7TH KARTHIKA 1930 MFA.No. 63 of 2003() -------------------- OPMV.350/1998 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., ALAPPUZHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANTS/RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 ------------------------------------------------------ 1. GIRIJA W/O. LATE K.S.SUDHAKARAN, KUNJAN VEEDU, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 2. K.S.AKHIL, REPRESENTED BY THE NEXT FRIEND AND GUARDIAN P.GIRIJA KUNJAN VEEDU, KANICHUKULANGARA P.O., CHERTHALA. 3. BAIJU S/O. VASUDEVAN, PUZHARATHU COLONIYIL, WARD-5, KANJIKUZHY PANCHAYATH 4. K.R.PRADEEP S/O. RAJAPPAN, KAROTTU HOUSE, MUHAMMA P.O., KANJIKUZHY. ADV. SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR FOR R4 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 29/10/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C .N. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & HARUN-UL-RASHID, JJ. -------------------------------------------- M.F.A. No. 63 OF 2003 -------------------------------------------- Dated this the 29th day of October, 2008 JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair,J. Appeal is filed by the insurance company for a declaration that it is entitled to recover compensation from the registered owner-cum- driver of the autorikshaw who is the first respondent in the OP and third respondent in this appeal, fourth respondent being previous owner of the very same autorikshaw. The ground on which insurance company presses their right to recover the compensation amount from the registered owner is that he did not have driving licence at the time of the accident which was on 6.8.1997. Admittedly valid driving licence was obtained by the third respondent in the appeal only with effect f rom 16.10.1997 and so much so he did not have driving licence as on the date of the accident. However, in order to verify whether he had at least learner's licence, we requested the RTO to file a report. The RTO has stated that learner's licence is a requirement for getting a 2 regular licence and applicant for licence should have held a learner's licence for not less than 30 days. In this case, the accident was a little over two months before the date on which the third respondent in the appeal took licence. However, if he had at least learner's licence as on the date of the accident, then insurance company is liable to pay compensation. Since RTO is not able to verify this, and since third respondent has not appeared in court, we grant liberty to the insurance company to recover the compensation amount from the third respondent, if he does not at least produce before it proof of holding a learner's licence as on the date of the accident. If he possessed a learner's licence on that date, then insurance company is liable to pay compensation amount. The company will along with a copy of this judgment call for production of learner's licence and on failure it can authorise recovery. Appeal is disposed of as above. (C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR) Judge. (HARUN-UL-RASHID) Judge. kk 3