IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 196 of 2008()
1. BIJUKUMAR, POTTAVILAVEEDU,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. SUBRAMONIAN CHETTIYAR,
... Respondent
2. PRASANNAKUMAR, REMYA BHAVAN,
3. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, NEW INDIA
For Petitioner :SRI.G.SUDHEER
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :24/10/2008
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
--------------------------
M.A.C.A No. 196 OF 2008
---------------------
Dated this the 24th day of October, 2008
JUDGMENT
This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, in OP(MV) 722/01.
The claimant, a rider of the scooter, sustained injuries when an
autorickshaw collided with the scooter. The Tribunal found that the
accident took place on account of the negligence of the auto driver.
Tribunal also found that the driver did not have a valid driving licence
and therefore there is a breach of policy conditions and directed the
owner to reimburse the amount to the Insurance Company on the
payment made by the Insurance Company. It is against that
decision, the owner has come up in appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would strongly contend
before me that there was licence for the auto driver but he was not
having the badge. Therefore, the Tribunal was not right in holding
that there is breach of policy conditions. Admittedly the autorickshaw
is a passenger carrying vehicle. It comes within the definition of a
transport vehicle defined under section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles
MACA No. 196/08
2
Act. When it is so, whether the badge is necessary is the question to
be considered. In order to drive a transport vehicle, there must be a
badge. In other words, the licence to drive the vehicle is complete
only on receiving the badge from the authority. This question came
up for consideration before the Apex court in the decision reported in
New India Assurance Co.Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemanshal Fakir
[2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SC)]. It was a case where an autorickshaw
totally confined for transporting goods was involved. The driver was
having a licence for driving light motor vehicle. It was contended that
since the laden weight of the auto was less than 7500 kgms it comes
within the ambit of a light motor vehicle and therefore the licence for
driving light motor vehicle is sufficient to hold that there is a valid
driving licence. The Apex court considered various amendments and
introduction of forms which also did show that the word transport
vehicle was introduced in the licence form. Therefore, under the
provisions of Sections 3 and 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act of 1989, it
was found that a licence to drive a transport vehicle is necessary.
Therefore in the absence of the same, it has to be held that there is a
breach of policy conditions. So when there is a breach of policy
MACA No. 196/08
3
conditions, the Insurance Company has to pay and recover the
amount. That is what the Tribunal has precisely ordered in this case.
I do not find any merit in the appeal. Therefore it is dismissed.
But I give three months time for the appellant herein to pay the
amount. Till that time, coercive proceedings need not be initiated
against the appellant for recovery.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
vps
MACA No. 196/08
4