The court affirmed that the Insurance Company must prove non-possession of a valid driving license by the driver at the time of the accident to warrant recovery from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT

Pius C. Kuriakose, J Both these appeals are preferred by the owner of a mini bus which was one of the vehicle involved in a road traffic accident. The Tribunal under the impugned awards which are impugned after determining the compensation directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount and thereafter recover it from the appellant owner. Such a direction was issued in view of a finding by the Tribunal that the 2nd respondent in the O.P.(MV) who was the driver of the offending bus did not have a current driving licence. Our attention is drawn by Sri.K.K.Mohammed Ravuf, the learned counsel for the appellant to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in M.A.C.A No.281/11 and connected appeals, a copy of the above judgment was placed before us by Sri.Ravuf. Sri.Ravuf submitted that the above common judgment pertains to other claims arising out of the very same accident. It was submitted that before the learned Single Judge, the driving licence as well as the driving licence particulars issued by the concerned RTO were produced as Annexures-A and B. It was submitted that it was on perusing Annexures-A and B that relief was given to the appellant (the same appellant) in those cases.

2. Smt.Raji T. Bhaskar, the learned counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that the learned Single Judge became inclined to grant relief to the appellant in those cases only after imposing cost on the appellant. She submitted that even if this Court is inclined to grant relief to the appellant proper cost may be imposed on the appellant for inertia on his part in not producing the driving licence on time.

3. In reply Sri.Ravuf submitted relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Narcinva V. Kamat Anr. Vs. Alfredo Antonio Doe Martins & Ors ( 1985(2) SCC 574 ) that the burden was on the Insurance Company to prove by adducing evidence that the Driver did not have a current driving licence at the time of the accident.

4. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions addressed at the Bar. We have carefully gone through the common judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in M.A.C.A No.281/11 and other cases. We are convinced that the Driver of the mini bus belonging to the appellant was having a current and valid driving licence at the time when the accident occurred. We are inclined to allow the appeal. Accordingly, we allow both these appeals and delete the direction in the impugned awards that the compensation amount to be paid by the respondent Insurance Company can be recovered from the appellant. In the circumstances which obtain in this case, we are not inclined to order payment of cost to the respondent Insurance Company.

PIUS C. KURIAKOSE JUDGE