Kerala High Court
Hari K.Nair vs Omanakuttan on 27 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
THURSDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 6TH ASHADHA, 1946
MACA NO. 666 OF 2021
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OPMV NO.2303 OF 2015 OF MOTOR
ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
HARI K.NAIR
AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. RAMAKRISHNAN NAIR, 206, SRINATH NAGAR PART 2,
VEJAIPUR, AHMADABAD 380 051
BY ADVS.
R.MOHANA BABU
SRI.M.AJITH (KARICODE)
RESPONDENT/PETITIONER AND RESPONDENTS 2&3:
1 OMANAKUTTAN,
AGED 43 YEARS
S/O. GOPALAKRISHNAN, PRIYA NIVAS, UPPOODU MURI,
KADAPUZHA, EAST KALLADA VILLAGE,
KOLLAM DISTRICT 691 502
2 NIZAMUDEEN,
S/O. MOHAMMED SALI, CHARUVIL PUTHEN VEEDU, EDAVATTOM,
VELLIMON 691 511 [NAME OF 2ND RESPONDENT IS CORRECTED
AS IMAMUDEEN INSTEAD OF NIZAMUDEEN AS PER ORDER DATED
15/2/2022 IN I.A. NO.2 OF 2021]
3 M/S. BAJAJ ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE CO.LTD,
g.E PLAZA, AIRPORT ROAD, YERWADA, PUNE 411 006
REPRESENTED BY MANAGER
BY ADVS.
ARUN ALEX
N.P.PRADEEP
SRI.LINTO FRANCIS
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR
ADMISSION ON 27.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA NO.666 OF 2021 2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is at the instance of the 1st respondent owner of the offending vehicle challenging the recovery ordered against him as per award dated 24/2/2018 in OP(MV) No.2303 of 2015.
2. Recovery was ordered in favour of the 3rd respondent insurer finding that the 2nd respondent driver of the offending lorry had no valid driving licence as on the date of the accident. Against that finding, the 1st respondent owner filed this appeal.
3. When the appeal was taken up for consideration today, learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that, the 2nd respondent driver of the offending lorry had a valid driving licence, and he produced the same as MACA NO.666 OF 2021 3 Annexure A document along with IA No.1/2022. That document was accepted in evidence as per order in IA 1/2022. On going through that document, it could be seen that the 2nd respondent Imamudeen.M was having valid driving licence to drive non-transport vehicle from 8/2/1996 to 7/2/2016, and transport vehicle from 23/7/2012 to 22/7/2015. The offending vehicle in the case on hand was a lorry and the accident occurred on 18/5/2014. So as on the date of accident he was having valid driving licence, to drive the lorry.
4. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent also fairly conceded that the 2nd respondent was having valid driving licence, to drive the lorry on the date of accident. So much so the recovery ordered against the appellant is to be set aside.
MACA NO.666 OF 2021 4
In the result, the appeal is allowed, and the recovery ordered against the appellant stands set aside. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE ska