High Court Kerala High Court

V.G.Ramesh vs Annam on 29 June, 2007

Kerala High Court
V.G.Ramesh vs Annam on 29 June, 2007
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MACA No. 2034 of 2006()


1. V.G.RAMESH, S/O.GOKSHAPPAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. ANNAM, W/O.LATE THOMAS,
                       ...       Respondent

2. ROSELY, W/O.VAKKACHAN,

3. JOSEPH, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

4. JOY, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

5. THRESSIYAMMA, W/O.VARGHESE,

6. JOHNY, S/O.LATE THOMAS,

7. VEERAPPAN, S/O.VELAYUDHAN,

8. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.RENNY AUGUSTINE

                For Respondent  :SRI.PMM.NAJEEB KHAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice J.B.KOSHY
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.P.BALACHANDRAN

 Dated :29/06/2007

 O R D E R
                    J.B.KOSHY & K.P.BALACHANDRAN, JJ.

                 -------------------------------------

                         M.A.C.A.No.2034 OF 2006

                 -------------------------------------

                          Dated 29th June,  2007



                                  JUDGMENT

Koshy,J
.

This appeal is filed by the registered owner of the

vehicle questioning the award of the Tribunal enabling the

insurance company to realise the compensation from him.

2. Heard counsel for the appellant as well as

contesting respondents. Claim petition was filed by the legal

representatives of the motor accident victim. The Tribunal

awarded a compensation of Rs.98,300/= against a claim of

Rs.2,50,000/=. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred

due to the negligence of the 7th respondent who was driving the

vehicle insured by the insurance company. The Tribunal

directed the insurance company to pay the compensation and

realize it from the registered owner/insured as the driver was

not having valid driving licence. It is the case of the

appellant that he has sold the vehicle before the accident.

But, it was found on evidence that transfer of the vehicle was

after the date of accident. Main contention is that the

driver had valid driving licence and licence was produced on

2.11.1999 vide Cf.No.21113/99, but, the Tribunal did not

record and consider the same. In the above circumstances, we

MACA.2034/2006 2

are of the opinion that the matter should be remanded for

reconsidering the same. Counsel for the 7th respondent

driver also submitted that he had a valid driving license

at the time of the accident and it was produced before the

Tribunal. The only question to be considered is regarding

the recovery aspect by the insurance company and whether 7th

respondent has a valid licence at the time of the accident.

Only insurance company, driver and appellant need appear

before the Tribunal and claimants need not appear before

the Tribunal. The Tribunal shall post the case on

22.8.2007 and parties are directed to take notice of the

same for their appearance.

Appeal is allowed by way of remand.

J.B.KOSHY

JUDGE

K.P.BALACHANDRAN

JUDGE

tks