IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH DECEMBER 2008 / 26TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 298 of 2008() ---------------------- APPELLANT: ----------------- RAJEEV, S/O.RAJASEKHARAN PLAPARQMBIL HOUSE, AALUNILKUMKALAYIL PERUMTHODU KARA, ERUMELI NORTH VILLAGE-686001. BY ADV. SRI.P.C.HARIDAS RESPONDENTS: ---------------------- 1. JOSEPH, S/O.SCARIA, VETTIKUZHI HOUSE ERUMELY SOUTH VILLAGE, EDAKKUNNAM KARA PROPOSE P.O., MUNDAKAYAM VIA. 2. THE UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGER, MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.A.A.MOHAMMED NAZIR FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/12/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: MACA No. 298/2008 ORDER ON I.A. NO. 402/2008 IN MACA No. 298/2008 DISMISSED SD/ M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE 17.12.2008 /TRUE COPY/ P.A. TO JUDGE M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 298 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 17th day of December, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No. 1000/2004. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs. 36,160/-. The tribunal also found that there is breach of conditions of policy and so it is entitled to get reimbursement on satisfaction of the award. It is against this decision, the owner of the vehicle has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. The matter is now squarely covered by decision of the apex court reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another [2008 (3) T.A.C. 20 (SC)] . It was also a case where an autorickshaw delivery van was involved. Autorickshaw driver was having a licence to drive a light motor vehicle. It was contended before the apex court that since autorickshaw is a vehicle whose unladen weight is less than 7500 kgms, it will come within the definition of a light motor vehicle M.A.C.A. 298/2008 -2- and therefore the licence to drive light motor vehicle is sufficient for driving the same. The Supreme Court considered this matter and also referred to the definition of the transport vehicle under Section 2 (47) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Transport vehicle includes a public passenger carrying vehicle and the autorickshaw in the present case is a vehicle used to carry passengers that is public and therefore it satisfies the definition of transport vehicle under Section 2(47) of the Motor vehicles Act. Then the apex court referred to the various regulations, forms and also the changes undergone in the licence form regarding transport vehicle and it was held that unless the person is having the requisite licence to drive a transport vehicle he is not entitled to drive the same. When it is so, the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that a badge is not a must to drive a light motor vehicle cannot be accepted and entitlement of the Insurance Company on the breach of policy condition by the owner will certainly have to be allowed. 3. Therefore the tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the owner is liable to reimburse the amount to the Insurance M.A.C.A. 298/2008 -3- Company. If the Insurance Company has already deposited the amount it is at liberty to realise the amount from the owner but it is directed that it need not initiate any coercive proceedings for recovery for a period of three months from today. The M.A.C.A is disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm