IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 1011 of 2010()
1. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE NEW INDIA
... Petitioner
Vs
1. RESTHESH.E,S/O.MADHAVAN.E.V,
... Respondent
2. JAFAR SADIQUE,S/O.ABDULLA,FATHIMA MANZIL
For Petitioner :SRI.KKM.SHERIF
For Respondent : No Appearance
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :05/10/2010
O R D E R
M.N.KRISHNAN, J.
-------------------------
M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2010
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010.
J U D G M E N T
This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims
Tribunal, Kasaragod in OP (MV) No. 456/2005. The claimant
sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded a
compensation of Rs.35,500/- and directed the insurance company to
pay the amount. It is against that decision, the insurance company
has come up in appeal.
2. When notices were tendered respondents 1 and 2 had
unclaimed the same and therefore, their service is declared as
sufficient. Even otherwise, the first respondent in the claim
application namely, the owner had remained absent before the trial
court also.
3. The short point that arises for determination in the appeal
is regarding the right of re-imbursement to the insurance company.
The materials available would show that the police has charge
sheeted the rider of the bike for having driven the vehicle without a
valid license. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is
imperative that a person, who is driving the vehicle should have a
M.A.C.A. No. 1011 of 2010 2
valid driving licence to drive that category of vehicle, which he was
riding. The tribunal found that the accident had taken place on
account of the negligence of the first respondent owner-cum-rider.
So there cannot be any verification regarding the entrustment of a
vehicle to a rider, who is having licence, since the owner himself
who has no driving licence, had driven the vehicle against law. The
insurance policy very clearly states that a person must be duly
licenced inorder to come within the coverage under the policy.
Therefore, I disagree with the tribunal and hold that the first
respondent in the claim petition having driven the vehicle without
valid driving licence had committed the breach of policy conditions
especially being the owner of the vehicle. Therefore, insurance
company is entitled to get re-imbursement of the vehicle.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed, the award under challenge
is modified making it clear that the insurance company has to
deposit the amount and on satisfaction of the award, the insurance
company is permitted to recover it from the owner by executing the
very same award.
This appeal is disposed of accordingly.
M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE
ln