IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 27TH NOVEMBER 2008 / 6TH AGRAHAYANA 1930 MACA.No. 2805 of 2008() ----------------------- OPMV.648/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, OTTAPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------------------- M.ABDUL LATHEEF, S/O.MAMMUNNI,KOLAMPAN VEEDU, NELLIPPUZHA P.O. MANNARKKADU, PALAKKAD(OWNER OF JEEP BEARING REGISTRATION NO.KLM 7445) BY ADV. SRI.K.B.ARUNKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER -------------------------------------- 1. P.ASHARAF S/O. KHADEEJA, PUNCHAYIL VEEDU, P.O.THRIKKALUR, KALLANKUZHI, POTTASSERI, MANNARKKADU. 2. ABDULLA, S/O.ALINGAMU @ ALI MOHAMMED, PATHARAMUNDA, MANCHANTHODU P.O. MANNARKKAD (DRIVER OF JEEP KLM-7445) 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., MAIN ROAD, MANNARKKAD (INSURER OF JEEP KLM-7445) THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 27/11/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2805 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 27th day of November, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam in O.P.(MV)648/97. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident and the Tribunal awarded him a compensation and made the insurance company to pay the amount. When the matter came up in appeal before this Court as MFA 1506/01, the case was remanded by the High Court for reconsidering the issue of violation of policy condition. After considering the entire matter, the Tribunal has held that there is breach of policy condition and directed the owner to reimburse the amount to the insurance company. It is against that decision the owner has come up in appeal. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant very persuasively submits the following for consideration. 3. The person injured in the accident is a third party. He is not a passenger in the jeep. So it is contended by him M.A.C.A. 2805 OF 2008 -:2:- that just because the policy is issued to a private vehicle which had been used for the purpose of taking people for hire or reward will not exonerate the insurance company from the liability. The answer to the argument raised by the learned counsel is as follows: Suppose a person was travelling in a jeep, viz., a jeep to which the policy of a private vehicle is issued, then the passenger or the person travelling in the jeep will have the status of a gratuitous passenger not covered by the policy at all. Whereas in the instant case it is true that a person affected by the accident is not a passenger in the jeep but an outsider. The policy conditions would show that the vehicle can be only used for the purpose for which the policy is issued and if there is violation of the same then it amounts to breach of policy conditions. So far as this case is concerned the vehicle for which only a policy of a private vehicle is issued is found to be used for carrying public which means as a taxi and therefore there is exfacie violation of the conditions of policy and therefore there is breach of policy M.A.C.A. 2805 OF 2008 -:3:- conditions. When there is such a breach of policy condition the insurance company cannot be saddled with the liability. Therefore the Tribunal rightly directed the insurance company to pay the amount to the claimant and directed the owner to reimburse the same to the insurance company. I find the said decision is strictly in accordance with law which does not call for any interference. Hence the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-