IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN FRIDAY, THE 14TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 23RD KARTHIKA 1930 MACA.No. 2604 of 2008() ------------------------------- OPMV.56/2006 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALA .................... APPELLANT/ADDL.4TH RESPONDENT : ---------------------------------------------- SANTHOSH KUMAR, VARAVUMKAL HOUSE, NEAR ALANADU TEMPLE, ALANADU P.O, ANTHINADU. BY ADV. SRI.MANUEL KACHIRAMATTAM SMT.MERRY GEORGE RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER/RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 : ----------------------------------------------------------------- 1. THOMAS MATHEW, PUTHETTU, PIZHAKU P.O., MEENACHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 2. ANIL S/O. KUMARAN, OLICKAL HOUSE, ANTHINADU, MEENACHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 3. MANOJKUMAR, S/O. KESAVAN, KAVUMKAL HOUSE, VALIYAKAVUPURAM, BHAGOM, ULLANADU KARA MEENACHIL THALUK, KOTTAYAM. 4. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., PALA, KOTTAYAM. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 14/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: MACA.No. 2604 of 2008 ORDER ON I.A.NO.3094 OF 2008 IN M.A.C.A.NO.2604 OF 2008 DISMISSED 14.11.2008 SD/- M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE -TRUE COPY- P.A. TO JUDGE pac M.N. KRISHNAN, J ----------------------- M.A.C.A.No. 2604 OF 2008 --------------------------------- Dated this the 14th day of November, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pala in O.P.(MV) No.56/06. The appellant is the 4th respondent in the case. It is his contention that as the autorickshaw was not used for carrying passengers at the time of the occurrence, there is no necessity to have a driving licence coupled with a badge. In support of that contention the learned counsel strongly relies upon Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act deals with the necessity for permit for running transport vehicles. A vehicle cannot be a transport vehicle for one purpose and an ordinary vehicle for another purpose. At the time of taking the permit, a vehicle is to be classified into one category, either a private vehicle or a public vehicle. When a permit is taken for the purpose of carrying passengers, Section 2(47) of the Motor Vehicles Act is applied and it becomes a transport vehicle. Then, irrespective of the question for what purpose it is used at the time of accident, that vehicle can be driven only by a person competent to drive such a vehicle as M.A.C.A. 2604/08 -2- contemplated under the provisions of the Act. If a different interpretation is given and it is stated that when the owner goes for his personal purpose, no badge is necessary and when it carries a third person, a badge is necessary. It would be giving unnecessary interpretation which will really result in miscarriage of justice. When a permit is issued and the vehicle is used as a transport vehicle as envisaged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the law mandates that it should be driven by a person who is having a licence to drive that vehicle. There was a contention that these type of vehicles namely autorickhaw which is having only a unladen weight of less than 7,500 kgms, is only light motor vehicle and therefore there is no necessity to have a badge to drive such a vehicle. But this point has been precisely considered by the Apex Court in the decision New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir and another [2008 (3) TAC 20]. It has been held therein that when a vehicle is used as a transport vehicle and as the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act , envisage a proper licence, which means a badge, without such badge amounts to breach of policy conditions. Therefore the Insurance Company is liable to be reimbursed in such cases. The M.A.C.A. 2604/08 -3- learned Tribunal had considered each and every point raised analysed it in the light of authoritative pronouncements and had arrived at a correct decision which does not call for interference. Therefore I find no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN,JUDGE vkm