High Court Kerala High Court

P.Balakrishnan vs P.S. Kunjumon (Dead) on 10 July, 2008

Kerala High Court
P.Balakrishnan vs P.S. Kunjumon (Dead) on 10 July, 2008
       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

MFA.No. 460 of 2003(F)


1. P.BALAKRISHNAN, S/O. KRISHNAN,
                      ...  Petitioner

                        Vs



1. P.S. KUNJUMON (DEAD).
                       ...       Respondent

2. PONNARATTA NALINI, W/O.LATE P.S.KUNJUMON

3. PONNARATTA ARUN,S/O.LATE P.S.KUNJUMON

4. P.S.SETHUBAI,

5. PALANGODAN SREEDHARAN,

6. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,

                For Petitioner  :SRI.SURESH KUMAR KODOTH

                For Respondent  :SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN

The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN

 Dated :10/07/2008

 O R D E R
                     M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
                   M.F.A.NO. 460 OF 2003
               = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
            Dated this the 10th day of July, 2008.

                        J U D G M E N T

This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor

Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV) 1803/95.

The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and he was

awarded a compensation of Rs.69,500/-. The Tribunal found

that the accident had taken place on 16.7.95 and that the

driving licence had expired on 4.5.95 and it was renewed only

on 28.7.95. So the Tribunal arrived at a decision that there

was no valid driving licence and therefore directed the

insurance company to pay and take reimbursement from the

owner of the vehicle. It is against that decision the owner has

come up in appeal.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant had submitted

before me that the very absence of a driving licence on the

date of the accident is not by itself sufficient to order

reimbursement in the light of the Apex Court decision reported

MFA 460 of 2003
-2-

in Swaran Singh’s case National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.

Swaran Singh (2004 (1) KLT 781). The Apex Court while

summarizing the principles at paragraph 102 had laid down

the propositions to be followed by the Tribunal. It has been

held in paragraphs (iii) and (vi) as follows.

(iii) “The breach of policy conditions,

i.e., disqualification of driver or invalid driving

licence etc. to avoid its liability towards

insured, the insurer has to prove that the

insured was guilty of negligence and failed to

exercise reasonable care in the matter of

fulfilling the condition of policy regarding the

use of vehicles by duly licensed driver or one

who was not disqualified to drive at the

relevant time.”

(vi) Even where the insurer is able to

prove breach on the part of the insured

concerning the policy condition regarding

holding of a valid licence by the driver or his

qualification to drive during the relevant

period, the insurer would not be allowed to

avoid its liability towards insured unless the

said breach or breaches of the condition of

driving licence are so fundamental as are

MFA 460 of 2003
-3-

found to have contributed to the cause of the

accident. The Tribunals in interpreting the

policy conditions would apply ‘the rule of

main purpose’ and the concept of

‘fundamental breach’ to allow defences

available to the insurer under Section 149(2)

of the Act.”

So from the extraction of paragraph (iii) and (vi) it can

be seen that the Tribunal was entrusted with the duty to see

that whether the owner of the vehicle was conscious of the

fact there was no licence and it must be established that it was

the fundamental cause for the accident. Unfortunately this

decision was not available for the Tribunal when it disposed of

the matter in May 2001. Therefore, the matter requires

reconsideration at the hands of the Tribunal and therefore the

award under challenge is set aside so far as it relates to the

right of reimbursement and the Tribunal is directed to consider

that question afresh after affording equal opportunities to both

sides. The insurance company is permitted to produce

documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their

respective contentions and the Tribunal shall dispose of the

MFA 460 of 2003
-4-

matter in accordance with law. The junction of the claimants

are not necessary for a disposal in this case and the insurance

company and owner are directed to appear before the Tribunal

on 20.8.08. Till a final decision is taken, any recovery

proceedings initiated by the insurance company shall remain

stayed.

M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.

ul/-

MFA 460 of 2003
-5-

M.N. KRISHNAN, J.

= = = = = = = = = =
M.F.A. No. 460 OF 2003
= = = = = = = = = = =

J U D G M E N T

10th July, 2008.