National Insurance Co. Ltd vs National Insurance Co. Ltd
2021 Latest Caselaw 11031 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                              PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 07TH DAY OF APRIL 2021 / 17TH CHAITHRA, 1943

                     MACA.No.2274 OF 2013(C)

   AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 764/2010 DATED 05-07-2013 OF MOTOR
               ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPPALAM


APPELLANT/3rd RESPONDENT:

             NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.
             NEW DELHI, REPRESENTED BY ITS
             ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER,
             NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
             KOCHI, REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR,
             OMANA BUILDINGS, M.G.ROAD, KOCHI-35.

             BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 & 2 IN THE OP:

      1      ABDUL NAFIH
             S/O. ABOOBACKER MAULAVI,
             ARANGODAN HOUSE, KAAP, MELKULANGARA,
             VETTATHUR, THELAKKAD P.O.,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 325.

      2      ABDUL VAHAB A.
             S/O. ABU MAULAVI, ARANGOT HOUSE,
             THELAKKAD P.O., PATTIKKAD,
             MALAPPURAM DISTRICT-679 325.


     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
07.04.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.2274 OF 2013

                                         2




                                   JUDGMENT

Dated this the 07th day of April 2021

This is an appeal filed by the 3rd respondent in O.P.

(MV)No.764/2010 on the files of Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal, Ottapalam. This is a claim petition filed by one

Muneer, S/o Musthafa, claiming compensation under Section

166 of the Motor Vehicle Acts. (Hereinafter the parties are

mentioned in accordance to their rank before the Tribunal)

2. Short facts are like this:- On 04.08.2010 at 2.00

p.m., the petitioner being a vegetable merchant was doing his

business in his goods autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL - 9625,

and was inviting customers from the side of the road. At that

time, a car bearing Reg. No. KL - 53601 driven by the 1 st

respondent in a rash and negligent manner came and knocked

him down, and thereby he sustained severe injuries. The

petitioner claim compensation from respondent Nos.1 to 3

who are the driver, owner and insurer of the car. A specific

contention was taken by the 3rd respondent that the driver

was not having a valid licence at the time of the accident. MACA.No.2274 OF 2013

3. After going through the evidence and the

documents the Tribunal had passed an award allowing the

petitioner to recover an amount of Rs.1,00,100/- from

respondent Nos.1 to 3 jointly and severally.

4. Aggrieved by the above award the 3rd respondent -

insurance company filed the above appeal.

5. Heard.

6. The only point raised by the 3rd respondent -

insurance company is that the 1 st respondent had no valid

licence at the time of accident. This point is consider by the

Tribunal in Paragraph 12 of the impugned award which is

extracted hereunder:-

"(12) The next contention advanced by the insurance company is that R1 had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. They filed I.A.2799/2011 directing R1 to produce the driving licence. Consequently, he has produced the same. Moreover, R1 appeared and filed written statement contending that he had valid driving licence. Further, he has produced the same along with the written statement. Ext.B1 and B2 were marked on his side out of which Ext.B1 is the copy of driving licence issued by the District Transport Officer, Phek, Nagaland on 18-7-2007 and it was renewed upto 17-7-2013.

Further, he has produced a copy of no objection certificate issued by the aforesaid authority to the Licensing Authority. Malappuram by which it can be seen that the DTO, Phek Nagaland has no objection for renewal and authorisation of the driving license from the Licensing MACA.No.2274 OF 2013

Authority, Malappuram, Ext.B3, the copy of driving license particulars of R1 was produced by R3 which also supported the case of R1. So having considered the aforesaid documents, I am of the view that the contention of the insurance company cannot be accepted."

7. In the light of the above finding, it is clear that the

1st respondent was having a valid licence as on the date of the

accident.

In such circumstances, the contention raised by the 3 rd

respondent will not sustain. No other contention is raised by

the 3rd respondent. Hence, the appeal fails.

Consequently, the above appeal is dismissed.

Sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE VPK