Kerala High Court
MACA/1865/2011 of NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD. Vs SMINISH.E.B. AND OTHERS on 31 December 2012
COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934 MACA.No. 1865 of 2011 ( ) ------------------------- OPMV.894/2006 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN &
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.K.ABDUL REHIM
MONDAY, THE 31ST DAY OF DECEMBER 2012/10TH POUSHA 1934
MACA.No. 1865 of 2011 ( )
-------------------------
OPMV.894/2006 of M.A.C.T.,ERNAKULAM
APPELLANT(S)/RESPONDENT NO.2:---------------------------- NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LTD. DIVISIONAL OFFICE KOTTACKAL ARYAVAIDYASHALA BUILDING, M.G.ROAD ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER.
BY ADVS.SRI.KKM.SHERIF
SRI.A.A.ZIYAD RAHMAN SRI.LAL K.JOSEPH
RESPONDENT(S)/PETITINER AND RESPONDE NO.1:
------------------------------------------
1. SIMNISH E.B. S/O BABU, KORACKAL HOUSE,AMRAVATHI P.O KOCHI-1
2. K.T.RAJEEV, S/O THANKAPPAN,10/1203.KORACKAL HOUSE AMARAVATHI P.O, KOCHI-1
3. SOSHMON K.D.
HOUSE, NO. 10/607
KORACKAL HOUSE, AMARAVATH;Y P.O, KOCHI-1
4. ICICI LOMBARAD GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD. KOCHI 682 031.
BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPALAKRISHNA MENON
BY ADV. SRI.M.JITHESH MENON
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON31-12-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
Page 1 of 2
jm
S.SIRI JAGAN &
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JJ
-------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 1865 of 2011
---------------------------------------------Dated this the 31[st] day of December, 2012
JUDGMENT
C.K. Abdul Rehim, J.
The second respondent in OP(MV) No.894/2006 beforethe Motor Accident Motor Accident Tribunal, Ernakulam isthe appellant herein. The claimant before the Tribunal, whois the first respondent herein, suffered injuries in a Motorvehicle accident in which a car bearing RegistrationNo.KL-7 AK 9009 insured with the appellant was involved.The appellant insurance company took contentions beforethe Tribunal refuting the liability, on the basis that theowner-cum-driver of the car was not having any validDriving Licence at the relevant time. It is contented thatwithout properly adverting to those contentions, theTribunal held that the appellant insurance company is liableto pay the compensation. According to the appellant, theTribunal, ought to have permitted recovery of the M.A.C.A. No. 1865 of 2011
2
compensation from the owner-cum-driver of the vehicle.
2. The second respondent, who is the owner-cum-driver of the car insured with the appellant, had produced copy ofthe Driving License held by him at the relevant time, asAnnexure R2(a) in this appeal. The license shows validity forthe period from 19.3.2003 to 22.3.2004 . This would revealthat as on the date of the accident, i.e. on 25.12.2005, thesecond respondent was holding a valid driving license.
Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that thecontentions raised by the appellant does not deserve merit.
Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE
C.K. ABDUL REHIM, JUDGE
jm/-
Page 2 of 2
Loading citations and judicial treatment…