IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN TUESDAY, THE 15TH DECEMBER 2009 / 24TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 MACA.No. 2470 of 2009(A) ----------------------- OP.955/2005 of M.A.C.T OTTAPPALAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT ---------------------------- THE PRESIDENT, MADATHILPADI KARSHAKA SAMITHI, REG.NO.358/97, MAYANNUR P.O., THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS PRESIDENT SRI.MANIKANDAN, 40 YEARS, S/O.KUMARAN, KOTTUVEETTIL HOUSE, MAYANNUR P.O., THRISSUR DIST. BY ADV. SRI.SHOBY K.FRANCIS RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------- 1. RAVI K.K., S/O.JANAKI AMMA, KALATHIKUZHIYIL HOUSE, SOUTH KONDAZHI, KONDAZHI P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT. 2. KUMARAN T.C.,S/O.CHAMI, PARAYIL HOUSE, KILLINIKADAVU DESOM, VADAKKETHARA VILLAGE, PAZHAYANNUR, THRISSUR. 3. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO. LTD., JRJ COMPLEX, OTTAPALAM P.O., PALAKKAD DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.RENIL ANTO KANDAMKULATHY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/12/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 2470 OF 2009 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 15th day of December, 2009. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred by the 2nd respondent in O.P. (MV)955/05 against the finding of reimbursement granted in favour of the insurance company. In O.P.(MV)955/05 the claimant was awarded a sum of Rs.27,450/- and an order for reimbursement was passed. The order of reimbursement was passed on the ground that R1, the driver in the claim petition did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The copy of the driving licence proved that the validity of the licence was only up to 17.10.04 and the accident was on 8.5.2005. Admittedly the licence was renewed only after 8.5.05. Therefore the Tribunal held that the insurance company is entitled to raise the plea of breach of policy condition and therefore ordered reimbursement. It is challenging that decision the owner has come up in appeal. The learned counsel would contend that there was a valid driving licence up to 2004 and it has been renewed after the M.A.C.A. 2470 OF 2009 -:2:- accident. So since the person was holding a valid driving licence it makes it very clear that he is not disqualified from driving the vehicle and so the insurance company cannot get exonerated from the liability. There was a view regarding the renewal making the insurance company liable holding that there is no breach of policy conditions. But now the matter has been considered by the Apex Court and it has been held that when the licence is not renewed within the statutory period of 30 days as contemplated u/s 15 of the M.V.Act the licence cannot be renewed with retrospective effect and as per the provisions of the Section it can be renewed only from the date of renewal. This is with reference to the statutory provisions under Section 15 of the M.V.Act. Further a reading of S.3 of the M.V.Act also would amplify that when a person who is driving a vehicle he should have the necessary authority to drive the vehicle at that point of time. Now so far as this case is concerned admittedly the licence had expired as early as on 17.10.04. The accident took place on 8.5.05. The renewal is only M.A.C.A. 2470 OF 2009 -:3:- thereafter. So the licence is renewed 14 months after the expiry. So it is not within the statutory limit prescribed under the section. So the validity of the licence will be only from the date of renewal which is subsequent to the accident. Therefore it cannot be held that the driver was holding a valid driving licence on the date of the accident. This position is covered by two authoritative pronouncements of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Suresh Chandra Aggarwal 2009 (3) TAC 586(SC) AND National Insurance C. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala (2008 (12) SCC 701). In both these decisions the dictum explained above has been found to be the correct one and held that there was no valid driving licence for the driver. It was a tractor which is used in public and the owner should have taken necessary care to have a properly licensed driver to ply the vehicle. Therefore he had not taken adequate care and so he has committed the breach of policy conditions. As he has committed breach of policy conditions at least the M.A.C.A. 2470 OF 2009 -:4:- insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement of the amount ordered to be paid to the 3rd party. That is what is precisely done by the Tribunal. Therefore the contention of the appellant cannot be accepted and the appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-