A.K.MANOJ Vs. SURESH S/O KUNJAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first respondent is served. The third respondent appears through counsel. Notice to the second respondent who is stated to be the registered owner of the vehicle is not served. Notice to him is dispensed with in view of the decision I propose to take in the appeal.

(2.) THIS appeal arises from the award dated 25.06.2010 in O.P(M.V).No.86 of 2006 of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Perumbavoor (for short, "the Tribunal"). The first respondent claimed compensation from the appellant and the respondents 2 and

(3.) THE learned counsel for the third respondent has vehemently opposed acting on the photocopy of the driving license produced. According to the learned counsel, it is to be seen whether even Annexure I was renewed and was in force on the date of the accident and assuming so, it authorised the appellant to drive a mini lorry like the one involved in this case. It is submitted that evidence is required but the appellant did not adduce any evidence in the Tribunal. Instead, the appellant remained absent.