Full Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH THURSDAY, THE 11TH DAY OF JULY2013/20TH ASHADHA, 1935 MACA.NO. 710 OF 201.() ------------------------------------- O.P(MV) NO.1881 OF 2007.ADDITIONAL MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM APPELLANT-1ST RESPONDENT: -------------------------------------------- JONAMMA JAMES, AGED 5 YEARS, W/O.JAMES, KUDUTHUNASSERI HOUSE, MUNDAMVELI P.O., COCHIN ”
507. BY ADVS.SRI.P.E.THOMAS SRI.JIJO JOSEPH RESPONDENTS-CLAIMANTS-RESPONDENTS: ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRATHEESH M.S., S/O. M.K. SOMAN, MUKKATHUPARAMBU, NETTOOR P.O., MARADU VILLAGE.
2. VISWANATHAN, S/O.SREEDHARA MENON, PAZHAVACKAL HOUSE, AROOKUTTY ROAD, AROOR P.O., ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT.
3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COM. LTD., JEWEL ARCADE, LAYAM ROAD, ERNAKULAM COCHIN-11. RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 ARE DELETED FROM THE ARRAY OF PARTIES VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 11 07.2013. R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW BY SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 11-07-2013 ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NO.1170 OF 2013.THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J.
==================================== M.A.C.A. Nos.710 & 1170 of 2013 ==================================== Dated this the 11th day of July, 2013 JUDGMENT
These appeals are preferred by the owner of the offending vehicle aggrieved by the right of recovery given to the 3rd respondent on payment of the amount due to the claimants.
2. In M.A.C.A. No.710 of 2013, at the request of the appellant, respondents 1 and 2-claimant and driver of the offending vehicle are removed from the party array on C.M. Appl. No.907 of 2013. There is no reason why respondents 1 and 2 should remain in the appeal also. Hence respondents 1 and 2 are deleted from the array of parties in the appeal. The same procedure is adopted in M.A.C.A. No.1170 of 2013 as well and and respondents 1 and 2 will stand deleted from the party array.
3. Dispute in these appeals is between the 3rd respondent who is the insurer of the offending vehicle and the appellant, who is its owner. The accident occurred on 13.06.2007 in which two persons sustained injuries. They claimed compensation in O.P(MV) Nos.1881 and 1882 of 2007 of the Additional Motor Accidents M.A.C.A Nos.710 & 1170 of 2013 -:
2. :- Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. The 3rd respondent contended that it is not liable since the deleted 2nd respondent, driver of the offending vehicle was not having valid licence at the relevant time. The Tribunal accepted that contention and permitted the 3rd respondent to recover the amount from the appellant who is the owner of the offending vehicle.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that driver of the offending vehicle got renewal of the licence on 23.07.2007 and hence it must be taken that as on the date of accident - 13.06.2007 there was a valid licence. A photocopy of the renewed licence is also produced.
5. The learned Senior Advocate for the 3rd respondent has contended that it is not clear when the application for renewal of licence was preferred by the (deleted) 2nd respondent and without ascertaining that, there could be no finding that the renewal related back to the date of accident or the date of expiry of the licence.
6. I am told that licence in favour of the (deleted) 2nd respondent expired on 30.07.2008. Under Section 14 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, "the Act") a grace of period of 30 days is provided from the date of expiry of the licence to apply for M.A.C.A Nos.710 & 1170 of 2013 -:
3. :- renewal. If the application for renewal is preferred within that time, when the licence is renewed it relates back to the date of expiry of the original licence. But if the application for renewal is not preferred within the grace period of 30 days provided under Sec.14 of the Act, the renewal cannot relate back to the date of expiry of the original licence. That view is taken by this Court in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Kali (2005 [2] KLT
490) and Rohini v. Kumaran (2006 [2] KLT 8).
7. Therefore the questions which are to be decided are whether the (deleted) 2nd respondent had applied for and obtained renewal of the licence and if so, when was that application preferred? That requires evidence. Without evidence the above questions cannot be decided in these appeals.
8. In the circumstances the appropriate course is to remit these appeals to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the question of violation of policy condition and right of the 3rd respondent to recover the amount from the appellant. All other findings entered by the Tribunal would remain in force. Resultantly, the appeals are allowed by way of remand as under: M.A.C.A Nos.710 & 1170 of 2013 -:
4. :- (i) Findings entered by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam in the common award in O.P(MV) Nos.1881 and 1882 of 2007 regarding violation of policy condition and right of the 3rd respondent-insurer to recover the amount from the appellant are set aside. (ii) O.P(MV) Nos.1881 and 1882 of 2007 are remitted to the Tribunal for fresh decision on the above said questions after giving parties opportunity to adduce evidence, if any. (iii) If so advised it is open to the appellant to file written statement in the two cases but limited to the question of violation of policy condition and right of the 3rd respondent to recover the amount awarded from the appellant. (iv) Parties shall suffer their costs in these appeals. (v) Parties shall appear in the Tribunal on 16.08.2013. All pending Interlocutory Applications will stand dismissed. THOMAS P.JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv