IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1082 of 2009()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. C, NASEER, S/O. MOIDU,
... Respondent
2. P.P. AZEEZ, S/O. MAMMU,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :17/02/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NOs. 1082 & 1417 OF 2009
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
These appeals are preferred against the common award
passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in
O.P.(MV)Nos.193/03 an 194/03. The claimants are the
mother and daughter who were hit by a jeep resulting in
injuries to him. In O.P.(MV)193/03 the claimant was
awarded a compensation of Rs.8,000/- and in the other the
claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/- and liability was
cast on the insurance company. It is aggrieved by that
decision the insurance company has come up in appeal.
2. The contention of the insurance company is to the
effect that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a
valid driving licence to drive a jeep and therefore there was
breach of policy conditions and so the insurance company is
at least entitled to get the right of reimbursement. The
learned Tribunal had considered this issue in paragraph 10 of
M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082
& 1417 OF 2009
-:2:-
the award. It is made clear by the Tribunal itself that R1 was
having a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle other than a
transport vehicle. The licence was given only to drive a light
mother vehicle. The Tribunal took the view that since the
insurance company had not succeeded in proving that the
jeep involved in the accident is a transport vehicle it cannot
sustain the plea and therefore rejected its contentions.
3. At the out set I may like to state that the policy
issued to the owner itself will reveal that it is issued to a
passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The vehicle involved
in the accident is KL-11/B-7349. So the policy issued would
reveal that the jeep had been issued with a policy covering
passengers carried in commercial vehicle. A copy of the
charge sheet made available also revealed that the vehicle
involved is a taxi jeep. Whether a passenger carrying
commercial vehicle will come within the ambit of a transport
vehicle can be seen from S.2(47) of the M.V.Act which
defines the transport vehicle. A transport vehicle means a
public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational
M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082
& 1417 OF 2009
-:3:-
institution bus or a private service vehicle. Admittedly the
jeep in this case is a commercial vehicle to carry passengers
and therefore it has to be held that it is a transport vehicle
as contemplated u/s 2(47) of the M.V.Act.
4. The next question is whether a vehicle can be
driven with a light motor vehicle licence. There was a
previous view that as per the definition of the light motor
vehicle if the laden weight is less than 7,500 kgs. it would be
only a light motor vehicle and therefore it is sufficient to
drive. But subsequently the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
made it clear relying upon S.3 and 10 of the M.V.Act. U/s 10
of the M.V.Act the word transport vehicle is substituted and
S.3 makes it clear that,
“No person shall drive a motor vehicle in
any public place unless he holds an
effective driving licence issued to him
authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no
person shall so drive any transport vehicle
unless his driving licence specifically
entitles him so to do.”
M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082
& 1417 OF 2009
-:4:-
5. So there must be a specific entitlement to drive
and that specific entitlement is normally called as a badge.
So as seen in this case from the materials available it can be
held that the vehicle involved in the accident is a public
service vehicle which comes under the definition of transport
vehicle and that the driver did not have an effective valid
driving licence to drive such a vehicle. When it is so there is
breach of policy conditions and therefore the insurance
company is entitled to get right of reimbursement. Therefore
the appeals are allowed and the finding of the Tribunal
making the insurance company totally liable is set aside and
it is held that the insurance company is directed to pay the
amount to the third party and recover that amount from the
owner of the vehicle by execution of the very same award.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-