The court remanded liability issues back to the tribunal for review, allowing both parties to present evidence for reevaluation.

JUDGMENT

These appeals are filed by the 2nd respondent/owner in O.P.

(MV) Nos. 294 of 2020, 2059 of 2019 and 1422 of 2021 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor, challenging the award directing the insurance company to pay the amount and recover the award amount from the appellant/2nd respondent, the owner. The respondents herein are the claimants and respondents 1 and 3 before the tribunal.

2. Brief facts of the case is as follows :- On 26.06.2017 at about 05.30 am, while the claimants were travelling as passengers in the bus bearing registration No.KL-06-H-1204 driven by the 1strespondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the electric post and the tree standing by the side of the road and thereby sustained serious injuries. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹3,00,000/-, ₹10,00,000/-* and ₹2,50,000/- in O.P.(MV) Nos. 294 of 2020, 2059 of 2019 and 1422 of 2021 respectively.

3. The first and second respondent/driver and owner of the offending bus remained ex parte before the tribunal. The 3^rd respondent/insurer filed a written statement admitting the validity of the policy but disputing the quantum of compensation claimed and denying the liability by contending that the bus was not holding valid permit at the time of accident. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A17 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, awarded a sum of ₹4,01,746/- in O.P.(MV) No.2059 of 2019, ₹1,66,095/- in O.P.(MV) No.294 of 2020 and ₹1,55,009/- in O.P.(MV) No.1422 of 2021 as compensation under different heads with interest @8% per annum from the date of petition till realization with proportionate costs against the 3^rd respondent being the insurer of the offending vehicle and directed to recover the same from the 2^nd respondent/owner. Challenging the right of recovery granted by the tribunal against the appellant/2nd respondent/owner, the appellant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurance company. Since I am inclined to dispose of these appeals before admission, notice to the other respondents are dispensed with.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submitted that the offending vehicle had a valid permit to ply on the road at the time of the accident, which occurred on 26.06.2017. The appellant has produced the reply issued by the Regional Transport Officer, Idukki, to the RTI application, which is marked as Annexure-1. The said reply reveals that the offending vehicle had a valid temporary permit to ply on the road on the date of the accident.

6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company submitted that I.A. No. 2 of 2022 was filed before the tribunal seeking a direction to the owner to produce the valid permit of the vehicle, but the same was not produced. Hence, an adverse inference was drawn against the owner of the vehicle and recovery right was granted in favour of the insurance company. However, the documents are produced only before this court and ought to have produced before the tribunal. Therefore, there is no necessity for this Court to interfere with the said finding.

7. On a perusal of Annexure-A1, it is seen that the same is a temporary permit produced by the appellant along with this appeal, which shows that the temporary permit was valid from 11.06.2017 to 10.10.2017. Since the date of the accident was on 26.06.2017. The appellant owner was ex parte before the tribunal. The temporary permit was not produced before the tribunal, and hence