Hari K.Nair vs Omanakuttan
2024 Latest Caselaw 18581 Ker

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

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.

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