Jailavudeen vs State Of Kerala

Johnson John, J.

The appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(MV) No. 340 of 2013 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam and they are challenging the order of the Tribunal permitting the respondent insurance company to recover the amount from them after payment to the claim petitioner on the ground of violation of policy conditions. After the fling of the appeal, the 1st appellant died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 5.

The brief facts necessary for the disposal for the appeal are as follows:

The claim petitioner, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident occurred on 22.05.2012, alleged that the car driven by the 1st respondent in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit him and thereby, he sustained injuries. The 2nd respondent is the owner of the offending vehicle. Respondents 1 and 2 were ex parte before the Tribunal and the Tribunal found that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, there is violation of policy conditions and that the respondent insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle after payment to the claim petitioner.

Heard Sri. Binoy Vasudevan, the learned counsel for the appellants and Sri. P. Jacob Mathew, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent insurance company.

The learned counsel for the appellants argued that the appellants have not received any summons from the Tribunal and they came to know about the award only when they received notice in the revenue recovery proceedings. It is argued that the 1st appellant, driver of the vehicle, was having a valid driving licence at the time of the occurrence and that the appellants were not able to produce the same before the Tribunal as they have not received any notice or summons from the Tribunal.

I.A. No. 2 of 2023 is a petition filed under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to receive Annexure A1 driving licence of the 1st appellant as additional evidence in appeal. Considering the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, I am satisfied that Annexure A1 driving licence can be received as additional evidence in appeal and therefore, the petition is allowed and the driving licence is marked as Exhibit B2.

The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out that the occurrence was on 22.5.2012 and that Exhibit B2—driving licence of the 1st appellant, driver of the offending vehicle, would show that the same is valid from 21.03.2002 to 20.03.2022. Since the driver of the offending vehicle was having a valid driving licence as on the date of occurrence, the finding of the Tribunal that there is violation of policy conditions is liable to be set aside.

In the result, the appeal is allowed and the finding of the Tribunal that there is violation of policy conditions and the order permitting the insurance company to recover the award amount from respondents 1 and 2 after payment to the claim petitioner, is set aside. No costs.