THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD Vs. OMANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE 2nd respondent, insurer in O.P. (MV) 1025/04 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Punalur has come up in appeal challenging the impugned award.

(2.) BEFORE the Tribunal, the 1st respondent registered owner who drove the vehicle involved, remained ex parte in the proceedings. The 2nd respondent, who is the appellant herein, contended that as the 1st respondent was not holding any valid driving license, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent. Even though the Tribunal has found that the 1st respondent was not holding any valid driving license, apart from thrusting the liability on the appellant to pay the compensation to the petitioner, the Tribunal has not cared to pass any order enabling the appellant to recover the liability from the registered owner.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that the Tribunal ought to have passed an order enabling the appellant to recover the liability from the registered owner of the vehicle, who is the 2nd respondent herein. Even though it has been specifically contended before the Tribunal that the 1st respondent was not holding any valid driving license at the time of the accident, and even when the Tribunal has also found that the 1st respondent was not holding any valid driving license, the Tribunal has not passed an order enabling the appellant to recover the liability from the 2nd respondent herein. No doubt, the Tribunal ought to have passed such an order in the matter. Matters being so, the impugned award requires modification to that effect.