Kerala High Court
The National Insurance Co. Ltd vs M.Preetha on 16 July, 2014
Author: B.Kemal Pasha
Bench: B.Kemal Pasha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE B.KEMAL PASHA
WEDNESDAY, THE 16TH DAY OF JULY 2014/25TH ASHADHA, 1936
MACA.No. 712 of 2013 ()
------------------------
OPMV 71/2001 of MACT,PATHANAMTHITTA
APPELLANT:
-------------------
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PATHANAMTHITTA,
EP.BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER
REGIONAL OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR
OMANA BLDG., M.G.ROAD,
KOCHI - 35.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENTS:
----------------------------
1. M.PREETHA
W/O.MOHANSIGH
NALLOOR KIZHAKKETHIL
THATTAYIL PO
ADOOR - 691 020.
2. MOHANSINGH
S/O.VELAYUDHAN
NALLOOR KIZHAKKETHIL
THATTAYIL PO.,
ADOOR - 691 020.
R1,R2 BY ADV. SRI.AMRIT RAJ BABY
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY
HEARD ON 16-07-2014, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
B.KEMAL PASHA J.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
M.A.C.A. No.712 of 2013
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- - - -
Dated this the 16th day of July, 2014
JUDGMENT
The third respondent Insurance Company, against whom award dated 2.2.2009 was passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta, has come up in appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant.
3. According to the appellant, the second respondent was not holding a valid driving license so as to enable him to drive a car, on the date of the accident and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have given a right of recovery of the liability from the first respondent. According to the appellant, the second respondent had a license to ride two wheelers only, and not any other vehicle.
4. It seems that the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit before this court with a copy to the appellant, whereby he has contended that he was holding a valid driving license for M.A.C.A. No.712 of 2013 2 enabling him to drive a motor bike with gear with effect from 24.9.1987 and also to drive the light motor vehicles with effect from 3.11.1999. It seems that the attested photocopies of the driving license have been produced along with the counter affidavit. The said affidavit has not been incorporated with the file. The learned counsel for the appellant has produced the copy received by the appellant. On a perusal of the copies, it is evident that the second respondent was holding a valid driving license enabling him to drive light motor vehicles with effect from 3.11.1999. It seems that the insurer had not taken any steps to call upon the second respondent to produce the driving license before the Tribunal. The burden is on the insurer to prove that there is a policy violation and it is not for the second respondent to prove that he had violated the policy in any manner. When no steps were taken for proving that the second respondent was not holding any valid driving license, and when presently it is shown that the M.A.C.A. No.712 of 2013 3 second respondent was holding the driving license valid from 3.11.1999, there is absolutely nothing to interfere with the impugned award passed by the Tribunal. Matters being so, this appeal is devoid of merits, and is only to be dismissed, and I do so.
In the result, this M.A.C.A. is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
B.KEMAL PASHA, JUDGE dl // TRUE COPY // M.A.C.A. No.712 of 2013 4