Kunjumon V.P vs K.P.Antony And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 6845 Ker

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                                PRESENT

           THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN

    FRIDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021 / 7TH PHALGUNA, 1942

                          MACA.No.2113 OF 2009

   AGAINST THE AWARD IN OPMV 149/1999 DATED 08-12-2004 OF MOTOR
              ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL ,PERUMBAVOOR


APPELLANT/S:

                KUNJUMON V.P.
                AGED 36 VETTUMTHARA HOUSE,, SREMOOLANAGARAM P.O.,
                CHOWARA, KALADY,, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.

                BY ADVS.
                SRI.SHIJU VARGHESE
                SRI.RENDEEP PREM

RESPONDENT/S:

      1         K.P.ANTONY AND 3 OTHERS
                KUTTALA HOUSE, MATTOOR, KALADY,ERANAKULAM.

      2         KUNJAPPANFATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN
                ARIVALKUDY HOUSE, SREMOLANAGARAM P.O.,, CHOWARA,
                KALADY, ERNAKULAM.

      3         THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.
                BRANCH,OFFICE,PERUMBAVOOR, ERNAKULAM.

      4         THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.
                BRANCH OFFICE, KALLOOKKARAN SHOPPIN, COMPLEX, 1ST
                FLOOR, ANGAMALY, ERNAKULAM.

                R1 BY ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN
                R1 BY ADV. SRI.VINUCHAND

     THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
26.02.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
 MACA.No.2113 OF 2009                    2




                               P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN, J
                            ----------------------------------
                              M.A.C.A. No. 2113 of 2009
                                --------------------------------
                       Dated this the 26th day of February, 2021


                                     JUDGMENT

The appellant is the 1st respondent in O.P.(M.V.) No.149/1999 on

the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor. It is a

claim petition filed by the 1st respondent herein under Sec. 166 of the

Motor Vehicles Act. The Tribunal after considering the entire oral and

documentary evidence found that the claimant is entitled an amount

of Rs.71,910/- with interest at the rate of 9% per annum till

realisation from respondents 1 to 3 jointly and severally. In the last

but one sentence of the impugned order, a sentence is added to the

effect that "R3 is at liberty to recover the amount from respondents 1

and 2 jointly and severally". Before that in para No.13 also after the

3rd sentence, another sentence is added which is extracted as : "It is

proved that at the time of the accident, 1 st respondent was not holding

a valid driving licence." The appellant, who is the 1 st respondent in

the claim petition is challenging mainly this part of the award.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the

Insurance Company.

3. Now, the appellant produced Annexure-A1 driving licence

which is in his name. The accident in this case was on 28.7.1998.

From Annexure-A1, it is clear that the driving licence was issued to

the appellant on 9.3.1995 and it was valid till 15.5.2023 for non-

transport vehicle and 12.1.2011 for transport vehicle. If that is the

case, the 'pay and recover' order passed by the Tribunal is

unsustainable. The appellant was ex-parte before the Tribunal. He

filed an application to set aside ex-parte order with a petition to

condone the delay. That petition was dismissed. Thereafter, this

appeal was filed with a petition to condone the delay in filing the

same. The delay is already condoned by this Court. Now, it is clear

from Annexure-A1 that the appellant is holding a valid driving licence,

during the time when the accident in this case happened. Hence, the

'pay and recover' order passed by the Tribunal is to be set aside. The

3rd respondent is bound to pay the compensation to the claimant and

3rd respondent has no right to recover the amounts from the

appellant.

Therefore, this appeal is allowed. The order allowing the 3 rd

respondent to recover the amount from the appellant is set aside.

sd/-

P.V.KUNHIKRISHNAN JUDGE SKS