IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 15TH OCTOBER 2009 / 23RD ASWINA 1931 MACA.No. 1753 of 2009(A) ----------------------- OPMV.1000/2001 OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MAVELIKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., KAYAMKULAM. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.JYOTHI PRASAD RESPONDENT(S): ADDL.PETITIONERS 2, 3,5 TO 9 AND RS.1-2 -------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. BHAVANI AMMA, W/O. LATE BALAKRISHNAN, BALAKRISHNA SADANAM, KODUKULANJI KARODU, KOZHUVALLUR P.O., VENMONY, CHENGANOOR. 2. RAVINDRA PILLAI, LAKSHMI VILASAM, -DO- -DO- 3. KRISHNANKUTTY PILLAI, KALATHIN PUTHEN VEEDU, -DO- -DO- 4. MANIYAMMA, W/O. VISWANATHA PILLAI, VISWAVILASAM, VENMANY, ALAPPUZHA. 5. SUJA G.PILLAI, BALAKRISHNA SADANAM, KODUKULANJI. 6. RAKHI KRISHNA, MINOR, -DO- -DO- 7. ATHITHY KRISHNA, MINOR, -DO- -DO- MACA.No. 1753 of 2009 -:2:- 8. K.P.GEORGE, KUNNUKATTICKAL, BETHEL, MYLAPRA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. 9. SOMAN PILLAI, S/O. NARAYANA PILLAI, LETHA BHAVANAM, KOZHUVALLOOR MURI, MULAKKUZHA VILLAGE, CHENGANNUR. (MINOR RESPONDENTS 6 AND 7 REPRESENTED BY THEIR MOTHER RESPONDENT NO.5) ADV. SRI.T.K.KOSHY FOR R8 SRI.SABU I.KOSHY FOR R8 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/10/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1753 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of October, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Mavelikkara in O.P.(MV)1000/01. The insurance company has challenged the award on the ground that the Tribunal did not consider the question whether the driver did have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and whether there is breach of policy conditions. The owner also has entered appearance here and he would contend that he has also got various contentions such as transfer of the vehicle etc. and therefore the matter requires consideration. It has to be stated that even by going through paragraph 4 of the award it is specifically stated therein by the Tribunal that the insurance company had raised a contention that the driver did have a valid driving licence. But unfortunately the very same Tribunal in paragraph 10 of the award would state that there is no contention in the written statement that the 2nd respondent M.A.C.A. 1753 OF 2009 -:2:- had ridden the scooter without having a valid driving licence. So it is a total mistake committed and it will affect the right of parties and so I feel the question that whether the insurance company is bound to pay and get it reimbursed and then proceed to realise the amount are all matters which has to be considered and for that purpose the matter is remanded back without disturbing the quantum and the parties are permitted to adduce evidence to substantiate their respective contentions. The owner is permitted to file a written statement since the first respondent herein is reported dead steps also may have to be taken and notice also can be issued to them from the Court below for a proper disposal of the case. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 25.11.2009. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-