United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs S.I.Rhumathulla
2021 Latest Caselaw 19042 Ker

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                              PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS
 MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943
                       MACA NO. 2121 OF 2009
    AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.226/2003 DATED
   06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD


APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA' , HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

BY ADVS.

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA S/O SHEIK ISMAI, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2125/2009 AND 2126/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 2125 OF 2009 AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.949/2002 DATED 06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

BY ADVS.

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA, S/O SHEIK ISMAIL, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2121/2009 AND 2126/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS MONDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 2126 OF 2009 AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.1246/2002 DATED 06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD

APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11.

BY ADVS.

SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:

1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA, S/O SHEIK ISMAIL, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT.

BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH

THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2121/2009 AND 2125/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

Dated this the 13th day of September, 2021

COMMON JUDGMENT

As these appeals arise out the common award of

the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, they

have been disposed of by this common judgment.

2. The appellant-insurer in these appeals was the

3rd respondent in O.P. (M.V.) Nos.226/2003, 949/2002,

1246/2002 and connected eleven claim petitions. O.P.

(M.V) No.226/2003 was filed by an injured named

Devu, O.P.(M.V.) No.949/2002 was filed by the legal

representatives of the deceased Susheela and O.P.

(M.V) No.1246/2002 was filed by the legal

representatives of the deceased Santhi.

3. The common case of the petitioners in all the

fourteen claim petitions filed before the Tribunal was

that, on 15.05.2002, while the nine injured and five

deceased were travelling in a van bearing registration

No. TNN 3637(Van) from Kothagiri to Ooty, the van

turned turtle and fell into a ditch 150 feet below the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

the road. Nine passengers sustained injuries and five

of them lost their lives. The accident occurred due to

the rash and negligent driving of the van by the 2 nd

respondent and owned by the 1st respondent in the

appeal.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings

and materials on record, allowed all the claim petitions

by the impugned common award dated 06.03.2008,

permitting the petitioners in the thirteen claim

petitions to realise the compensation amount from the

appellant/insurer and the petitioner in one claim

petition to realise the compensation amount from the

1st respondent.

5. Aggrieved by the impugned common award,

permitting the petitioners in the thirteen claim

petitions to realise the compensation amount from the

appellant/insurer, the insurer is in appeal.

6. Heard; Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior

Counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeals and M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

Sri.Sandeep Ankarath the learned counsel appearing

for the 1st respondent in all the appeals.

7. The principle ground of challenge in the

appeals is that, as the 2 nd respondent - the driver of the

van did not hold a valid driving license as on the date

of accident, the appellant - insurer is entitled to pay

and recover the compensation amount from the 1 st

respondent. It is contended that validity of the driving

license of the 2nd respondent expired on 15.08.2000

and the accident occurred on 15.05.2002. The 2 nd

respondent had renewed his driving license only with

effect from 21.10.2002. Therefore, the complete

exoneration of respondents 1 and 2 is erroneous in

view of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles

Act, 1988, and the law laid down by the larger bench

of this court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v.

Poulose [2015 (1) KLT 682]. Hence, the impugned

award directing the appellant to pay the

compensation, but not recover the amount from the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

respondents 1 and 2 is erroneous and liable to be set

aside.

8. The question that arises for consideration in the

appeal is whether the impugned common award

directing the appellant to pay the compensation

without the right to recover the amount from the 1 st

respondent, the owner of the van, is justifiable or not?

9. The 2nd respondent driver had produced Exhibit

B2 his driving license,which establishes that the

validity of his license had expired on 5.8.2000. The

accident occurred on 15.05.2002. The license was,

thereafter, renewed only with effect from 21.10.2002.

Hence, as on the date of the accident, admittedly, the

2nd respondent did not hold a valid driving license as

per the mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988.

Thus, necessarily, there was a infraction of the

insurance policy conditions falling within the purview

of Section 149(2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles

Act,1988. The Tribunal ought to have directed the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

appellant to pay the compensation amount and

granted it the right to recover the compensation

amount from the 1st respondent in all the claim

petitions following the statutory stipulation in the

above quoted provisions and the law laid in Poulose

(Supra).

10. The finding of the Tribunal that the non-

renewal of the license is not a criteria to absolve the

insurer of its liability is erroneous and wrong and is

liable to be set aside in the light of Poulose (supra). In

the above stated factual and legal background, I am of

the definite opinion that the impugned common award

not granting the appellant the right to recover the

compensation amount from the 1st respondent is

erroneous and wrong and liable to be set aside.

In the result,the appeals are allowed, by directing

the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation amount

to the petitioners in all the claim petitions and then

recover the said compensation amount from the 1 st M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009

respondent - owner of the vehicle. The parties shall

bear their respective costs.

Sd/-

C.S.DIAS,JUDGE

rmm