Failure to produce original driving license requires remand for liability questions.

JUDGMENT

These appeals arose from the impugned award dated

18.02.2014 in OP(MV) No.184 of 2011 on the files of the Principal Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kozhikode. MACA No.2085 of 2014 has been filed by the owner and driver of the offending vehicle, challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer against the owner of the offending vehicle. MACA No.1320 of 2014 has been filed by the claimant, dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the tribunal.

2. Since the parties and the cause of action are the same, the appeals are heard together and being disposed of by this judgment. For brevity, the parties are referred to as they are arrayed before the tribunal.

3. The case of the claimant is that on 04.04.2010, while she was returning home in the school bus and had alighted from it and was about to cross the road, the second respondent moved the bus in a rash and negligent manner, causing it to hit the claimant, as a result of which she sustained serious injuries. She approached the tribunal claiming compensation.

4. Respondents 1 and 2, who are the owner and driver of the offending vehicle respectively, filed a written statement, denying negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement, admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, but disputing the liability and quantum of compensation claimed. It was also contended that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of the accident. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A19, B1, B2 & C1 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of ₹3,31,526/- as compensation under different heads with interest @ 8% per annum from the date of petition till realization, against the third respondent being the insurer. However, the respondent insurer was granted a right of recovery against the first respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, for violation of provisions of law on the ground that the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The claimant has come up in appeal dissatisfied with the quantum of compensation awarded, whereas the owner as well as the driver of the offending vehicle has come up challenging the right of recovery granted to the insurer.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the claimant;

learned counsel for respondents 1 & 2/owner and driver; and the learned Standing Counsel for the insurer.

6. The learned counsel for the second respondent/owner of the offending vehicle, assailed the impugned award, stating that the tribunal went wrong in holding that the second respondent/driver was not having a valid licence to drive the offending vehicle and in granting a right of recovery to the insurer. The learned counsel, bringing the attention of this Court to Annexure A1 copy of driving licence of the second respondent/driver, which was produced along with the appeal, submitted that he was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The learned Standing Counsel, however, submitted that they have produced only the copy of the alleged driving licence and not the original, and hence, sought for remanding the matter to the tribunal for considering the issue regarding liability. I find force in the submission of the learned Standing Counsel. As the original of the driving licence is not produced before this Court, I deem appropriate to remand the matter to the tribunal only to the extent of considering the issue regarding liability.

7. The learned counsel for the claimant submitted that the injured was aged only 4 years at the time of the accident and as per Ext.C1 disability certificate, she sust