IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 181 of 2008()
1. SHAJITH K.K., S/O. DASAN,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. PARAKKANDY MATHU, W/O. LATE KRISHNAN,
... Respondent
2. ANOOP N.K., S/O. NANU,
3. THE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD.,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.P.PEETHAMBARAN
For Respondent :SRI.JOE KALLIATH
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/04/2010
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
...........................................
M.A.C.A.No.181 OF 2008
.............................................
Dated this the 5th day of April, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the
Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in OP(MV)No.1079/2001. The
claimant while travelling in an auto rickshaw sustained
injuries when the auto rickshaw in which he was travelling
capsized. The tribunal awarded him a compensation of
Rs.24,050/= and directed the insurance company to pay
the amount and realise it from the owner. The reason for
granting an order for realisation from the owner was on the
basis that the vehicle did not have a valid fitness
certificate on the date of the accident. The investigating
agency after conclusion of the investigation, charge sheeted
the owner under Section 56 read with Section 192 of the
M.V.Act for driving the vehicle without having fitness
certificate. There was also an interrogatory served on the
second respondent and it was not answered or the fitness
certificate was produced.
2. I also granted time to the learned counsel for the
: 2 :
M.A.C.A.No.181 OF 2008
appellant at his request to produce the fitness certificate,
if any, so that the controversy can be resolved. The
learned counsel is not in a position to produce the fitness
certificate.
3. Fitness certificate is an important document for
plying a vehicle through the road rather, it is a document
which certifies the road worthiness of the vehicle. When a
vehicle is not road worthy, it is against the provisions of the
policy condition to drive such a vehicle through the road.
It is more so when it is carrying public as an auto rickshaw.
4. Therefore in the absence of fitness certificate, it
can be safely held that there is breach of the policy
condition and when there is breach of the policy condition,
on satisfaction of the award in favour of the third party, the
insurance company is entitled to realise the amount from
the owner. So, the finding of the tribunal does not suffer
from any infirmity.
5. Therefore the appeal is devoid of any merit and it is
dismissed. But, I grant four months’ time to the appellant
to pay the amount to the insurance company and till that
: 3 :
M.A.C.A.No.181 OF 2008
time is over, the insurance company or the revenue
authorities are prevented from executing the award forcibly
against the appellant.
Disposed of accordingly.
M.N. KRISHNAN, J UDGE.
cl