IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 4TH JUNE 2010 / 14TH JYAISTHA 1932 MACA.No. 2887 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.301/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THODUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT IN OPMV NO.301/2005: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- THANKAN, S/O. KESAVAN, AGED 45 YEARS, MANIMALAKKUNNEL HOUSE, KADANADU P.O., PALA, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.M.V.SABU RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER AND 1ST & 3RD RESPONDENTS IN OPMV: --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. PRAKASH, S/O. BHASKARAN, AGED 32 YEARS, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, VELLIYAMATTOM VILLAGE, KANJAR P.O., IDUKKI DISTRICT. 2. BINISH, S/O. DEVASYA, CHAKINIYAMTHADATHIL HOUSE, KEETTILA KARA, KANJAR, IDUKKI DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., MUVATTUPUZHA BRANCH, MARKET ROAD, MUVATTUPUZHA. R3 BY ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NO.2887 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 4th day of June, 2010. J U D G M E N T This is an appeal preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Thodupuzha in OP(MV)No.301/2005. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal has awarded him a compensation of Rs.56,300/= and directed the insurance company to pay the amount. Thereafter the third respondent was permitted to get recovery of the award amount from the second respondent. It is the second respondent who has come up in appeal challenging the liability. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the insurance company. The recovery clause was incorporated in the award for the reason that there was breach of permit conditions and therefore by virtue of a breach of condition, it amounts to breach of the policy condition and so insurance company is entitled to claim reimbursement of the amount. The learned counsel for the appellant had drawn my attention to Section 149(2)(a)(i) (c) of the Motor Vehicles Act which reads that for a purpose not : 2 : M.A.C.A.NO.2887 OF 2009 allowed by the permit under which the vehicle is used, where the vehicle is a transport vehicle. So the learned counsel would contend that the word “for a purpose” has to be given a wide meaning and it will not include deviation from the route. This matter has been dealt with by courts and courts have taken a view that when there is diversion of the route on account of the reason that a particular route is blocked, then it will not amount to violation of the permit conditions. But here is not a case for the 2nd respondent that there was any blockage which had lead the driver to take the vehicle through another road. 3. As far as this case is concerned, the vehicle was permitted to be used within the Kottayam limits, whereas it has gone to Idukki district and the accident has taken place there. This position has been considered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd v. Papaiah ( 2006 ACJ 126). It was a case where an auto rickshaw was permitted to be used within 10 km of radius of the police station, but the auto rickshaw travelled beyond that and covered 20 km : 3 : M.A.C.A.NO.2887 OF 2009 radius and at that time an accident took place and the question that arose for consideration was whether there was breach of policy condition in such cases. The Karnataka High Court held that it will amount to breach of the policy condition, but the only thing is that the insurance company has to pay the compensation awarded to the third party and to recover the amount from the insured. I respectfully agree with the same. 4. Therefore in the light of this decision, no further point remains for consideration. The finding of the Tribunal that violation of the conditions of permit would amount to breach of the policy conditions which entitles the insurance company to recover cannot be found fault with. 5. Therefore the appeal fails and the same is dismissed, but I direct the authorities concerned and the insurance company to give a breathing time of 3 months' to the appellant to pay the amount. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. : 4 : M.A.C.A.NO.2887 OF 2009 cl : 5 : M.A.C.A.NO.2887 OF 2009