Kerala High Court
Anil Kumar vs Jose *[Deleted] on 11 June, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
TUESDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 21ST JYAISHTA, 1946
MACA NO. 3244 OF 2014
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 17.04.2013 IN OPMV NO.132 OF 2009 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOLLAM
APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT:
ANIL KUMAR
S/O.VIJAYAN, THANUVELIL THEKKETHIL,
NJAKKANAL P.O., OACHIRA VILLAGE, KOLLAM.
BY ADVS.
SRI.K.SIJU
SMT.S.SEETHA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 2 & 3:
1 JOSE *[DELETED]
S/O.THANKACHAN,
KANNAMPALLITHARAYIL VEEDU,
PUTHUPPALLY VAKAKKATHIL,
PUTHUPPALLY VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM
DISTRICT - 690 527.
2 THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER
ICICI LOMBARD, GENERAL
INSURANCE CO.,
KOLLAM - 691 001. *[RESPONDENT
NO.1 IS DELETED FROM PARTY
ARRAY AT THE RISK OF THE
APPELLANT, AS PER ORDER DATED
16/12/2014 IN IA 3867/2014 IN
MACA 3244/2014]
BY SMT.K.S.SANTHI, SC.
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 11.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
MACA No.3244 of 2014 2
JUDGMENT
This is an appeal preferred by the owner of the offending
vehicle in OP(MV) No.132 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents
Claims Tribunal, Kollam, challenging the recovery ordered against
him.
2. Learned Tribunal, while awarding compensation to the
legal heirs of deceased Sadanandan, found that, the rider of the
offending vehicle had no valid driving licence as on the date of
accident. So, learned Tribunal directed the Insurance Company to
deposit the award amount initially, and permitted them to recover
the same from the appellant/owner and his assets. That finding is
under challenge.
3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned
counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer.
4. In paragraph 23 of the impugned award, learned Tribunal
has stated that, the rider of the offending motorcycle had no
driving licence at the time of accident, and hence there was
violation of the policy conditions. The driving licence was not
produced before the Tribunal, though such a contention was taken
up by the insurer. Ext.A4 charge sheet shows that, the rider of the
motorcycle was charged under Section 3(1) of the Motor Vehicles
Act also, as he rode the motorcycle without valid driving licence.
5. The appellant filed this appeal challenging the recovery
ordered against him by the Tribunal, by which the insurer was
given liberty to recover the award amount from the owner and his
assets. Even in the appeal, no documents were produced by the
appellant to show that, the rider of the offending motorcycle was
having valid driving licence at the time of accident. The appellant
is not disputing ownership of the offending motorcycle as on the
date of accident. He has no case that the 1st respondent was not
the rider of the offending motorcycle, owned by him. Moreover, he
has no case that the 1st respondent was having valid driving licence
to ride the motorcycle as on the date of accident. Further, the
appellant himself filed a petition in the appeal, for deleting the
1st respondent/rider from the party array and accordingly, he was
removed from the party array also. So, the entire liability rests
upon the appellant, to repay the compensation amount deposited
by the insurer.
6. In such circumstances, there is nothing to interfere with
the recovery as ordered against the appellant, by the Tribunal.
So, the appeal is devoid of any merits and hence dismissed.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS
JUDGE
smp
