IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
MACA.No. 626 of 2007()
1. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. ABRAHAM, S/O JOSEPH,
... Respondent
2. C.A.ISMAIL, S/O ASSANAR, 4/274,
3. T.SANKARAN, S/O THAMBAN,
For Petitioner :SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
For Respondent :SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice M.N.KRISHNAN
Dated :28/08/2008
O R D E R
M.N. KRISHNAN, J.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = =
M.A.C.A. NO. 626 OF 2007
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008.
J U D G M E N T
This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor
Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)627/00. The
claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. He was
travelling as a pillion rider on a motor bike and it collided
with a jeep as a result of which he sustained injuries. 3rd
respondent filed a written statement contending that the 2nd
respondent was not holding a valid badge to drive a
transport vehicle and therefore there is breach of policy
conditions and hence the insurance company is to be
exonerated from the liability. On a consideration of the
entire materials the Tribunal granted an award of
Rs.92,000/- and also repelled the contention of the insurance
company holding that the driver was having a licence to drive
light motor vehicle.
2. The vehicle involved in the accident is a taxi jeep.
A perusal of the award would reveal that the driver was only
M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007
-:2:-
having the licence to drive a light motor vehicle. A taxi jeep
will come within the definition of a transport vehicle because
it is intended to carry passengers. S.2(47) of the M.V.Act
defines transport vehicle. It means, ‘a public service vehicle,
a goods carriage and an educational institution bus or a
private service vehicle’. The definition is so wide necessarily
a taxi jeep will come within the ambit of a transport vehicle
as defined u/s 2(47) of the Act. When it is so what will be
the legal position has been considered by the Apex Court in
the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v.
Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (2008 (3) TAC 20(SC).
It was held in that case that the vehicle is used as a
transport vehicle. S.3 and 10 of the Central Motor Vehicles
Rules and R.51 envisages a licence to drive a transport
vehicle. So the mere possession of a driving licence to drive
light motor vehicle will not cover the situation. As stated by
me earlier being a taxi jeep it is to be considered as a light
M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007
-:3:-
transport vehicle and therefore the mere possession of a
licence to drive a light motor vehicle may not be sufficient in
a case of this nature. Therefore there was no valid, effective
driving licence for the driver to drive the vehicle and
therefore there is breach of policy conditions. It was the
duty of the owner to entrust the vehicle to a duly licensed
driver and in the absence of the same he cannot escape from
the liability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the
insurance company is totally liable cannot be accepted.
Being a third party the claimant is entitled to be
compensated by the insurance company and the insurance
company is entitled to get it reimbursed from the owner of
the vehicle namely first respondent in the case.
So far as the quantum is concerned the amount
awarded is only reasonable and that does not call for any
interference. Therefore the appeal is party allowed and the
finding that the insurance company is totally liable is set
M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007
-:4:-
aside. The insurance company is directed to deposit the
amount in favour of the claimant and on deposit, is entitled
to get it reimbursed from the first respondent in the claim
petition by execution of the same award.
M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE.
ul/-