VINOD KUMAR S/O.SREEDHARAN Vs. DEPUTY TAHSILDAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the counsel for the petitioner, Government Pleader for the first respondent and the Standing counsel for the second respondent. There is no necessity to issue notice to respondents 3 and 4 in the circumstances of the case.

(2.) THE petitioner was the driver of the autorikshaw owned by the fourth respondent involved in an accident. The third respondent suffered injuries in the accident and laid a claim for compensation in OP(MV) No. 609/2009. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur by Ext.P2 award fastened the liability on the petitioner and the fourth respondent. The second respondent insurer was directed to pay the compensation amount to the third respondent and recover the same from the petitioner and the fourth respondent.

(3.) IT is seen that the petitioner did not produce the licence before the tribunal eventhough called upon to do so. It is upto the petitioner to produce the licence before the tribunal and apply for review of Ext.P2 award. There is also subsistence in the contention of the petitioner that the insurer can recover the compensation amount from the insured only. It is pointed out that the contract of insurance is between the insurer and the insured and the driver is not a party to the same.