A.C. ASHRAF Vs. M.P. FATHIMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the second respondent in O.P. (MV) No. 259 of 1995. He was registered owner of the motor cycle, bearing No. KRC 8054, ridden by the first respondent (seventh respondent in the appeal). The claim was filed by the widow and children of the motor accident victim. According to the claimants, the accident caused due to the negligence of the driver of the motor cycle, KRC 8054. The Tribunal found that the accident occurred as alleged. It was also found that the driver of the motor cycle has no driving licence at that time. A contention was taken up by the insurance company that since driver of the motor cycle had no driving licence, they are not liable to pay compensation, notwithstanding the fact that the vehicle was covered by policy of insurance. The appellant, registered owner was the second respondent in the claim petition. He entered appearance through one O.G. Premrajan, Advocate. According to the appellant, even though he entrusted the matter to him and he went several times, nothing was stated about the case. In any event, the record shows that no written statement was filed by him before the Tribunal and no evidence was adduced on his behalf. The witness examined on the side of the claimants were not cross-examined by him on behalf of the appellant and award was passed directing the insurance company to pay the amount with the right of recovering the amount from the insured, that is the appellant herein.

(2.) THE Supreme Court after following its earlier decision, in United India Insurance Company Ltd. v. Lehru and others (AIR 2003 SC 1292) : 2003(2) RCR(Civil) 278 (SC), held that even if there is no driving licence or driving licence is bogus, liability towards third party still continues with the insurance company and insurance company has to pay the amount and can recover the amount paid from the insured.