IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SOPHY THOMAS
FRIDAY, THE 27TH DAY OF MAY 2022 / 6TH JYAISHTA, 1944
MACA NO. 479 OF 2017
AGAINST THE AWARD DATED 18.08.2014 IN OPMV.NO.1011/2009 OF
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY
APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT:
THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD
KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER,
REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM
BY ADVS.
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.)
SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN
SMT.K.S.SANTHI
RESPONDENT/1ST RESPONDENT:
ABID.M.P, S/O.KADEEJA,
MOOTHEDATH PUTHIYAPURAYIL, PAPPINISSEERI(PO),
PAPPINISSERY PANCHAYATH, PIN-670561
THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP
FOR ADMISSION ON 27.05.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY
DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
M.A.C.A.No.479 of 2017
2
J U D G M E N T
This appeal has been preferred by the United India Insurance Company Limited for a recovery clause to recover the award amount from the respondent, who was the owner-cum-driver of the offending motorcycle.
2. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal found that there was a valid policy. Since the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the motorcycle by the respondent, the insurance company was found vicariously liable and awarded compensation of Rs.9,57,000/- with interest. Now, the appellant/insurance company contends that the respondent/owner-cum-driver had no valid driving licence to ride the motorcycle, and hence, there was violation of the policy conditions. The insurance company had filed I.A.No.938 of 2011 before the Tribunal for directing the respondent to produce his driving licence No.3233/2000 issued by the ALA, Kannur. According to the appellant, the respondent had a driving licence to drive M.A.C.A.No.479 of 2017 3 three-wheeler vehicles only, and he was not empowered to drive any other class of vehicle with that license. Though the Tribunal directed the respondent to produce the driving licence, it was not seen produced.
3. In the appeal also, though the respondent was served with notice, he did not appear and his driving licence for two-wheelers, if any, was not produced. So, it has to be presumed that the respondent did not have a valid driving licence to ride two-wheelers at the time accident. So, there is violation of the policy conditions as alleged by the appellant.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on Gurmail Singh (Represented by R K Nain (Adv.) & Pratima N Chauhan (Adv.) & Jinendra Jain (Adv.) v. Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company & Ors. (Represented by Neerja Sachdeva (Adv.) & Meera Mathur (Adv.) reported in (2018 ICO 2949) to say that when the driver did not produce the driving licence, it has to be presumed that he was not M.A.C.A.No.479 of 2017 4 having a valid licence on the date of accident, so, the insurance company is entitled for recovery rights. Based on that judgment, the appeal can be allowed empowering the insurance company to recover the amount as per the award dated 18.08.2014, from the respondent and his assets.
The appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
SOPHY THOMAS, JUDGE AS