IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 413 of 2010()
1. BABY PAUL, PANATTU HOUSE, ASAMANOOR P.O.
... Petitioner
Vs
1. A.P.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR,
... Respondent
2. JOY, PUTHEYATHU HOUSE, RAJAKUMARIKARA,
3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE UNITED INDIA
For Petitioner :SRI.R.MANOJ
For Respondent :SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.)
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :12/07/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 413 OF 2010
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 12th day of July, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)546/03.
The Tribunal passed an award granting a sum of Rs.30,761/-
with 8.5% interest and directed the insurance company to
satisfy the award and then recover it from the owner namely
the first respondent in the O.P(MV). It is against that
decision the appeal is preferred.
2. The first hurdle which the owner may have to
overcome is regarding the name of the driver. The
respondent is shown as Joy son of Mathai. But the licence
and other particulars are in the name of Jose son of Mathai.
Learned counsel had brought to my notice a copy of the
written statement filed wherein R2 is described himself as
Jose @ Joy. If Jose and Joy are one and the same person
the next question will be regarding the licence. Learned
counsel had produced before me some photocopies of the
M.A.C.A. 413 OF 2010
-:2:-
licence and in one of the endorsements I am able to find that
the licence to drive a transport vehicle is renewed up to
14.6.03. The accident had taken place on 15.2.2003. So if
really there is a renewal of the driving licence to drive a
transport vehicle up to 14.6.03, then there is a valid driving
licence with badge. So the factum that Jose and Joy are one
and the same person and there was a valid and effective
driving licence on 15.2.03 are the matters which the
appellant has to establish before the Tribunal. Since there
are contentions and some documents I do not want to
deprive him of an opportunity and therefore the award under
challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the interse
dispute between the owner and the insurance company is
concerned and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal
with a direction to permit all concerned to produce
documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their
respective contentions and then the Tribunal shall dispose of
the matter in accordance with law. Till a final decision is
taken in the matter the authorities, i.e. the insurance
M.A.C.A. 413 OF 2010
-:3:-
company as well as the revenue recovery authorities are
directed not to proceed against the appellant for realisation
of the amount. Parties are directed to appear before the
Tribunal on 19.8.2010.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-