Kerala High Court
The United India Insurance Co.Ltd vs Abid.M.P on 27 May, 2022
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
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
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
