SABU RAJAN AND ORS. Vs. JAKKAN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the respondents 1 and 2 in O.P.(M.V) No. 612/2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala. The first appellant is the driver of vehicle bearing No. KL-36-5220 and the second respondent is the registered owner. The vehicle got involved in a road traffic accident occurred on 28.10.2010 causing injuries to a pedestrian, which was sought to be compensated by filing the claim petition before the Tribunal. It is seen that the appellants did not choose to contest the matter and were set ex parte.

(2.) The second respondent Insurance Company contented that the driver of the vehicle did not had a valid Driving License and Badge at the relevant time. It is also seen that I.A. No. 3309/2015 was filed by the Insurance Company to cause production of the driving license. Despite service of notice, the same was not produced and hence adverse inference was caused to be drawn. The evidence before the Tribunal consists of the oral deposition of PW1, Exts.A1 to A10 produced from the part of the claimant and Ext.X1 Disability Certificate. Based on the pleadings and materials on record, the Tribunal held that the accident was solely because of the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle involved. A total compensation of Rs. 1,59,988/- was awarded, which was directed to be satisfied with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from 6.8.2011 within three months; failing which it was to carry interest at the rate of 9%. Observing that, the Driving License was not produced, the Insurance Company was set at liberty to have the amount recovered from the respondents 1 and 2 before the Tribunal.

(3.) The Insurance Company satisfied the due amount and proceeded with the recovery proceedings. This made the appellants to approach this Court by filing the appeal with a petition to condone the delay of 450 days in filing the same. The application to condone the delay is vehemently opposed from the part of the Insurance Company, pointing out that no satisfactory explanation is offered. The factum of existence of a valid Driving License and the coverage under the policy have been asserted by the appellants in the affidavit in support of the application to condone the delay. It is also stated that the matter was entrusted with a lawyer and since the vehicle was covered by a valid policy, and since the driver was having a valid Driving License, no further follow up action was taken and the appellants were under the bonafide impression that the matter would be defended properly. It was only on facing the recovery proceedings that the appellants realized the actual state of affairs, thus rushing to this Court by filing the appeal.