IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE R.BASANT & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR TUESDAY, THE 7TH APRIL 2009 / 17TH CHAITHRA 1931 MACA.No. 581 of 2009() ---------------------- OPMV.813/2003 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, VADAKARA .................... APPELLANT(S): IST RESPONDENT ---------------------------- K.E.BALAN, S/O.KRISHNAN, AGED 50 YEARS, PEACOCK HOUSE, POYILUR P.O., THOOVAKUNNU, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693. BY ADV. SRI.SUNIL NAIR PALAKKAT RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- 1. RAKESH ALIAS RAJESH, S/O.BALAKRISHNAN, AGED 27 YEARS, PUTHAN KANDATHIL HOUSE, IRINGAL AMSOM DESOM, IRINGAL P.O., KOYILANDY TALUK, KOZHIKODE DISTRICT. 2. SATHYAN M., S/O.NANU, AGED 28 YEARS, MOTTEMMAL HOUSE, P.O.POYILUR, THALASSERY TALUK, KANNUR DISTRICT-670 693. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., RUS BUIDING, P.B.NO.A-32 SOUTH BAZAR, KANNUR-670 002. ADV. SRI.A.R.GEORGE FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/04/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: R. BASANT & C.T. RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ------------------------------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 7th day of April, 2009 JUDGMENT Basant,J. The 1st respondent/owner before the Tribunal is the appellant before us. The vehicle belonging to him which was insured with the 3rd respondent herein was involved in an accident. The vehicle hit against a third party and the said third party who had suffered personal injuries is the claimant before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, on an anxious consideration of all the relevant inputs, came to the conclusion that the claimant is entitled to an amount of Rs.1,13,258/- as compensation along with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The vehicle was insured as a commercial vehicle at the relevant time. The driver of the vehicle, it came out in evidence, did have a valid licence to drive a non-commercial M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2009 -: 2 :- vehicle; but did not have the requisite authority at the relevant time to drive a commercial vehicle. The appellant herein took up a contention that on the relevant date the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle though it was insured as a commercial vehicle. For the period from 9/4/02 to 26/12/02 the vehicle was not being used as a commercial vehicle and was being used only as a motor car. Conversion is noted in the Registration Certificate also. The accident had taken place on 27/7/02 – i.e., at a time when the vehicle was being used only as a private motor car. However, the learned Tribunal took the view that though the registration particulars revealed that the vehicle at the relevant time was a motor car, it was a commercial vehicle prior to 9/4/02 and subsequent to 26/12/02. In these circumstances, though the accident had taken place only on 27/7/02, the court took the view that want of a proper driving licence/authority to drive a commercial vehicle for the driver at the relevant time is sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from liability. Accordingly, the appellant was directed to pay amount and the insurer was held to be not liable. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conclusion of the Tribunal is absolutely unjustified. It was not a case where an attempt was made to mislead any one. The policy was taken paying a much higher amount of premium applicable M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2009 -: 3 :- to commercial vehicles. But from 9/4/02 to 26/12/02 the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle. In these circumstances, it cannot at all be held that there is infraction of the stipulations of law or conditions of the policy of insurance. Inasmuch as the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle on the relevant date, though premium had been paid as applicable to a commercial vehicle, the mere fact that the driver of the vehicle did not have due authority to drive a commercial vehicle on the date of accident cannot deprive the appellant/insured of his right to get coverage of the vehicle under the policy of insurance, contends the learned counsel for the appellant. 3. I find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant. The vehicle had met with an accident and a third party out side the car had suffered injuries. The question whether the vehicle is a commercial vehicle or a private vehicle did not have much relevance while considering the crucial issue as to whether a third party outside the car is entitled to the compensation claimed. Be that as it may, it is very evident that on the relevant date the vehicle was not a commercial vehicle. The mere fact that the vehicle was a commercial vehicle prior to 9/4/02 and after 26/12/02 is no reason to absolve the insurer of his liability to pay compensation for the accident which took place on 27/7/02 at which point of time the vehicle was a non- M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2009 -: 4 :- commercial vehicle. No other contentions are raised by either side. We are satisfied, in these circumstances, that exoneration of the insurance company and mulcting the appellant alone with liability is not justified. 4. In the result: (a) This appeal is allowed. (b) The direction in the impugned award that the insurance company is not liable and respondents 1 and 2 (owner and driver) alone are liable to satisfy the award is set aside. (c) It is directed that the 3rd respondent/insurance company is also jointly and severally liable to pay amount along with other respondents. The 3rd respondent shall produce the cheques as directed by the court below. SD/- R. BASANT (Judge) sD/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR (Judge) Nan/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge M.A.C.A. No. 581 of 2009 -: 5 :-