IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 7TH JANUARY 2010 / 17TH POUSHA 1931 MACA.No. 3122 of 2009 --------------------------- OPMV.192/2005 of MOTOR ACCIDENTS CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MANJERI .................... APPELLANT/2ND RESPONDENT: ----------------------------------- U.K.SAKEER HUSSAIN, AGED 32 YEARS, S/O.MONUDHEEN HAJI, URUNIKKULAVAN HOUSE, KAIPATTA MATTATHOOR PO, TIRURANGADI TALUK MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER,MUHAMMEDKUTTY AGED 42 YEARS S/O.MONUDHEEN HAJI, JENNETH HOUSE, KAIPATTA, MATTATHOOR P.O., TIRURANGADI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY MR.P.VIJAYA BHANU, ADVOCATE. MR.P.VENUGOPAL (1086/92), ADVOCATE. RESPONDENTS/ CLAIMANT, 1ST AND 3RD RESPONDENTS: ----------------- 1. ABOOBACKER, S/O.MUHAMEDKUTTY NANNAMPETTA HOUSE, VELIYODU MATTATHOOR PO, PANAKKAD, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT 2. NASER, S/O.MUHAMMED KALANGADAN HOUSE, MATTATHOOR,PARAPPURAM OTHUKUNGAL PO, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD DIVISIONAL OFFICE, RAVIPURAM,M.G.ROAD,ERNAKULAM. BY MR.K.VIDYASAGAR, ADVOCATE, FOR R1. MR.P.JAYASANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 07/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN,J =========================== M.A.C.A.No.3122 of 2009 =========================== Dated this the 7th day of January, 2010 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Majeri, in O.P.(M.V).192/2005. The claimant who sustained injuries in a road accident has been awarded a sum of Rs.67,506/-(Rupees sixty seven thousand five hundred and six only) and a direction is given to the Insurance Company to deposit the amount and on deposit recover it from the owner for the reason that there was no valid driving licence for the driver at the time of the accident. The owner has challenged this. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the tribunal erred in arriving at a decision fixing the liability on the owner that is the right to recover. He would argue that there is no evidence to prove that the driver did not have any valid driving licence. I have perused the memorandum of appeal and in ground No.6 it is admitted that the driver failed to renew his licence within time and meanwhile the accident took place. When it is so I do not find any necessity to have some other evidence to show that the driver did not have a licence at the M.A.C.A.No.3122/2009 2 time of accident. When a licence is taken and it had expired under the provisions of the Motor Vehicle Act it has to be renewed within 30 days form the date of expiry and that 30 days period is always granted as a grace period. Suppose it is renewed thereafter it has been held by the decision that it will take effect only from the date of renewal and not earlier. The Honourable Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and others [2008 (12) SC 701] considered regarding the impact of the renewal of the license and held that if the driving license is not renewed within the period prescribed it will not take effect from the date of expiry. Supreme Court also considered the dictum laid down in National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Swaran Singh [2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)] and also extracted paragraph 82 in the report in SCC parts in the last sentence the Supreme Court held as follows: “If on facts, it is found that accident was caused solely because of some other unforeseen or intervening causes like mechanical failures and similar other causes having no nexus with driver not possessing requisite type of licence, the insurer M.A.C.A.No.3122/2009 3 will not be allowed to avoid its liability merely for technical breach of conditions concerning driving licence”. Here it is not such a technical breach of condition but a real breach of condition. The owner is expected to entrust a vehicle to a licensed driver and it is his responsibility to see that the driving licence is renewed at proper time so that it will not cause danger to the public. It is all the more so when the vehicle involved in an accident is a stage carriage bus where the responsibility is to see that the life of the persons taken in the bus are protected by the owner and the crew of the bus. So mere technicality shall not be a ground to exonerated the owner. The learned counsel would argue on the point of vicarious liability. It is true that in any case of this nature the employee will be primarily liable and the vicarious liability is on the master and that is why always both of them are made jointly and severally liable. The Insurance company is only indemnifying the insurer. It cannot recover the amount from anybody else. That is why the right of recovery is always granted to the insurer only from the insured. I do not find any mistake committed by the tribunal. Therefore, appeal lacks merits and hence it is M.A.C.A.No.3122/2009 4 dismissed. Since the amount involved is large I give four months time from today to the owner to make the payment and make it clear that till that time let there not be any coercive proceedings to realise from the owner. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE dvs