The petitioner was the owner of an autorickshaw. He transferred the same to the 2nd respondent and the registration of the autorickshaw was also transferred in the name of the 2nd respondent with effect from 4.5.1995. On 16.7.1995, the autorickshaw was involved in an accident, in which one Sri. M.K. Raveendran was injured. The said Sri.

M.K. Raveendran filed O.P (MV) No. 33/1996 before the MACT, Muvattupuzha, claiming compensation for the injuries suffered by him in the accident. In that O.P, both the petitioner as well as the 2nd respondent were impleaded as respondents apart from the 1st respondent insurance company with whom the petitioner had insured the vehicle when he was the owner of the vehicle, the period of which insurance spilled over beyond the date of the accident. Neither the petitioner nor the the 2nd respondent took the trouble to intimate the 1st respondent about the transfer of the vehicle. The 2nd respondent did not bother to insure the vehicle against third party risk, although the same was mandatory under the Motor Vehicles Act. In the award, the Tribunal came to the finding that the said Sri. M.K. Raveendran is entitled to compensation for the injuries suffered by him on account of the accident caused by the negligence of the driver of the vehicle. The Tribunal passed an award against all the respondents directing payment of compensation to the injured. The Insurance Company challenged that award in M.F.A.No. 459/1999 disclaiming liability to pay the award amount, on the ground that the driver did not have a valid licence at the time of the accident, in which a Division Bench of this Court passed Ext. P2 judgment, which reads thus:

"Appellant is the Insurance Company. Compensation of Rs.23,750/- was awarded to the claimant in O.P.(MV) No. 33/96 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent driver of the autorickshaw insured by the appellant. He was charge-sheeted for driving the autorickshaw without driving licence as can be seen from Ext. A3 charge-sheet. The 2nd respondent was called upon to produce his driving licence as per I.A.No. 420/98. Even though notice was accepted, driving licence was not produced. Therefore, admittedly the vehicle was driven without valid driving licence. The Apex Court has held that even if there is no driving licence, liability to third party cannot be avoided by the Insurance Company. Therefore, Insurance Company is liable to deposit the amount awarded. Since there is violation of policy condition as the driver was not having valid licence to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, Insurance Company is allowed to recover the amount from the insured. The entire amount with interest should be deposited by the Insurance Company. The appellant Insurance Company is free to recover the amount from the insured as the driver of the autorickshaw was not holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident."

In that judgment, this Court did not specify as to who is the insured from whom the Insurance Company can recover the amount. The petitioner herein filed a review petition, which was disposed of by Ext. P3 order, which reads as follows:

"Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 23,750/- and also directed respondents 1 to 4 including the petitioner in this review petition to pay the amount. Review petitioner did not file any appeal. Insurance Company filed appeal. We have in the appellate judgment which was dictated in the open court in the presence of the advocate directed that since there is valid insurance, Insurance Company should deposit the amount of compensation and the insurance Company can recover the same from the insured as there was violation of policy condition. We have not stated who is the insured. According to the petitioner, he transferred the vehicle to the fourth respondent and registered owner at the time of