IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA No. 258 of 2003()
1. ABDULKHADER, S/O. KUNHIMOHAMMED,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Respondent
For Petitioner :SRI.D.ANIL KUMAR
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice K.HEMA
Dated :24/11/2006
O R D E R
K. HEMA, J.
-----------------------------------
M.A.C.A. NO. 258 OF 2003
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 24th day of November, 2006.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is filed by the owner-cum-driver of the motor cycle
involved in an accident alleged in this case. An award was passed allowing
the claimant to recover and realise Rs. 24,790/- with interest from the
appellant and the insurer of the vehicle jointly and severally. The Tribunal
held that there is violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal also found that
the appellant had no valid license to ride the motor cycle on the date of the
accident as he had only a learner’s license renewed upto 10.09.1999. But,
the accident was on 20.10.1999. Therefore, the Insurance Company was
allowed to recover the amount from the appellant-insured.
2. As per the allegations in the claim petition, the claimant was a
pillion rider of a motor cycle and when he reached at the place of occurrence,
the motor cycle driven by the appellant came from the opposite side in a rash
and negligent manner and hit on the bike on which the claimant was
travelling. The claimant was thrown out to the road and he sustained injury.
He claimed a compensation of Rs. 1 lakh from the appellant and the insurer
of the vehicle owned and driven by the appellant.
3. The appellant contested the matter before the Tribunal. It was
contended by him that the accident occurred due to negligence of the other
vehicle on which the claimant was a pillion rider. The Tribunal, on an analysis
of the evidence rejected the said contention. It was held that, the appellant
M.A.C.A.258/2003 2
himself was rash and negligent in his driving, which resulted in the accident.
The appellant also contended that he had a valid driving license at the time of
accident. He had also produced the same, but it was not marked. The
Tribunal therefore found that he had no valid driving license at the time of
the accident and hence the Insurance Company was allowed to recover the
compensation awarded from appellant.
4. Learned counsel appearing for appellant submitted that, appellant
was having a valid learner’s driving license as on the date of occurrence,
which will be clear from the endorsement on the photocopy of the license
which was produced before the Tribunal. Though learned Tribunal failed to
mark the same on the side of the appellant, it arrived at a finding that the
learner’s license was renewed only on 10.09.1999, presumably, on the basis
of endorsement in the licence.
5. Drawing my attention to the photocopy of the learner’s license,
which is produced in this appeal, it was pointed out that the license was valid
from 13.09.1999, and it was renewed upto 12.03.2000, as seen from the
endorsement. But, learned Tribunal even without marking the document,
has wrongly entered a finding that learner’s license was renewed only upto
10.09.1999 and that at the time of accident, there was no valid license, it is
contended.
6. On going through the photocopy of the learner’s driving license, it
appears that the finding entered by the Tribunal is factually wrong. But,
without the production of the original, it may not be proper on the part of this
M.A.C.A.258/2003 3
Court to conclude whether the endorsement is correct or not, and whether
the finding of the Tribunal is actually wrong. This is specially so, since the
document was not marked or admitted in evidence. On the facts and
circumstances of this case, therefore, I find that an opportunity has to be
given to the appellant to adduce evidence and produce the document.
Hence, the award passed against him has to be set aside and the matter
requires reconsideration by the Tribunal.
In the result, the impugned award is set aside. Learned Tribunal is
directed to take the case on file and dispose of the same in accordance with
law, after giving an opportunity to both sides to adduce evidence on the
relevant aspects. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 29.03.2007.
(Since claimant is not made a party to these proceedings, as the challenge is
only against the Insurance Company taking steps to recover the amount
from the owner-appellant, Tribunal shall give notice to claimant/his counsel
also).
This appeal is allowed.
K. HEMA, JUDGE
smp