SRIDHARAN E Vs. P PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When this appeal came up for consideration on an earlier occasion, it was noticed that the Appellant had not made the statutory deposit as mandated under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act. On a request made by the learned Counsel, the case was adjourned, so as to enable the Appellant to make the deposit. Thereafter, two more adjournments were granted to the Appellant as requested.

(2.) Today, when the case is taken up for consideration, learned Counsel submits that the Appellant is not in a position to make the deposit. However, he invites our attention to a decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Rahiman v. Rajan, 2004 2 KerLT 1113 which, according to the learned Counsel, governs the field. It is pointed out by the learned Counsel that in this decision, it has been held that the stipulation contained in the first proviso to Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act will not come into play if the Insurance Company is directed to satisfy the award initially, and recover the amount from the owner and driver later. Learned Counsel submits that in the case on hand, an identical situation has arisen and therefore, the Appellant need not make the pre-deposit.

(3.) Appellant is the driver of the lorry which was involved in the accident. He has come up in appeal challenging the finding entered by the Tribunal that the licence possessed by him was not valid at the time of the accident. According to the Appellant, he had made an application for renewal of the licence and therefore, this aspect ought to have been kept in view by the Tribunal while deciding the question of validity of the licence.