IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH FEBRUARY 2010 / 28TH MAGHA 1931 MACA.No. 1082 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.193/2003 of ADDL.MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... APPELLANT(S): 3RD RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., KANNUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. MR.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------------- 1. C, NASEER, S/O. MOIDU, PANAPURATH HOUSE, P.O. MUCHIYAD, KAPPANA, ULICKAL. 2. P.P. AZEEZ, S/O. MAMMU, PALLIPATHU HOUSE, P.O., MUCHIYAD, ULICKAL. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/02/2010 ALONG WITH MACA NO. 1417 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NOs. 1082 & 1417 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 17th day of February, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the common award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)Nos.193/03 an 194/03. The claimants are the mother and daughter who were hit by a jeep resulting in injuries to him. In O.P.(MV)193/03 the claimant was awarded a compensation of Rs.8,000/- and in the other the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.28,000/- and liability was cast on the insurance company. It is aggrieved by that decision the insurance company has come up in appeal. 2. The contention of the insurance company is to the effect that the driver of the offending vehicle did not have a valid driving licence to drive a jeep and therefore there was breach of policy conditions and so the insurance company is at least entitled to get the right of reimbursement. The learned Tribunal had considered this issue in paragraph 10 of M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082 & 1417 OF 2009 -:2:- the award. It is made clear by the Tribunal itself that R1 was having a driving licence to drive a motor vehicle other than a transport vehicle. The licence was given only to drive a light mother vehicle. The Tribunal took the view that since the insurance company had not succeeded in proving that the jeep involved in the accident is a transport vehicle it cannot sustain the plea and therefore rejected its contentions. 3. At the out set I may like to state that the policy issued to the owner itself will reveal that it is issued to a passenger carrying commercial vehicle. The vehicle involved in the accident is KL-11/B-7349. So the policy issued would reveal that the jeep had been issued with a policy covering passengers carried in commercial vehicle. A copy of the charge sheet made available also revealed that the vehicle involved is a taxi jeep. Whether a passenger carrying commercial vehicle will come within the ambit of a transport vehicle can be seen from S.2(47) of the M.V.Act which defines the transport vehicle. A transport vehicle means a public service vehicle, a goods carriage, an educational M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082 & 1417 OF 2009 -:3:- institution bus or a private service vehicle. Admittedly the jeep in this case is a commercial vehicle to carry passengers and therefore it has to be held that it is a transport vehicle as contemplated u/s 2(47) of the M.V.Act. 4. The next question is whether a vehicle can be driven with a light motor vehicle licence. There was a previous view that as per the definition of the light motor vehicle if the laden weight is less than 7,500 kgs. it would be only a light motor vehicle and therefore it is sufficient to drive. But subsequently the Hon'ble Supreme Court has made it clear relying upon S.3 and 10 of the M.V.Act. U/s 10 of the M.V.Act the word transport vehicle is substituted and S.3 makes it clear that, “No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive any transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do.” M.A.C.A. Nos. 1082 & 1417 OF 2009 -:4:- 5. So there must be a specific entitlement to drive and that specific entitlement is normally called as a badge. So as seen in this case from the materials available it can be held that the vehicle involved in the accident is a public service vehicle which comes under the definition of transport vehicle and that the driver did not have an effective valid driving licence to drive such a vehicle. When it is so there is breach of policy conditions and therefore the insurance company is entitled to get right of reimbursement. Therefore the appeals are allowed and the finding of the Tribunal making the insurance company totally liable is set aside and it is held that the insurance company is directed to pay the amount to the third party and recover that amount from the owner of the vehicle by execution of the very same award. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-