IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 24TH MARCH 2010 / 3RD CHAITHRA 1932 MACA.No. 1321 of 2009() ----------------------- OPMV.2016/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ALAPPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): 2ND RESPONDENT: ------------------------------------------------------ P.A.SUDHAKARAN, PUTHENPARAMBU, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. BY ADV. MR.GOKUL DAS V.V.H. RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 & 3: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. ABDULKHADAR, S/O.HAMEED, PUNNAKKAPARAMBU VEETTIL, NORTH OF PUTHENANGADI MOSQUE, WARD NO.14 (XIV), MANNANCHERRY PANCHAYATH, AVALOOKUNNU P.O., ALAPPUZHA. 2. HARIKUMAR, S/O.GURUVALSALAM, PANAMTHARA VEEDU, KOTTAMKULANGARA WARD, ALAPPUZHA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD., SARADA COMPLEX, MULLACKAL, ALAPPUZHA. R3 BY ADV. MR.P.K.MANOJKUMAR THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 24/03/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO. 16735 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.No.1321OF 2009 & W.P.(C).NO.16735 OF 2009 ............................................. Dated this the 24th day of March, 2010. J U D G M E N T The appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Alappuzha in OP(MV)No.2016/1999 and the writ petition is filed against the award of the very same tribunal in O.P(MV)No.2033/1999. The appellant before the court is the owner. The owner has come up in appeal as well as in the writ jurisdiction contending that the tribunal erred in granting the right to recovery to the insurance company. According to him, the driver did have a licence but did not have a badge and therefore, it cannot be considered as a breach of the policy condition. The matter has come up for consideration before the Supreme Court as well as this Court in so many cases. After the amendment to Section 10 of the M.V.Act, the word used in Section 10 is transport vehicle. Admittedly the vehicle involved in the accident comes within the definition of transport vehicle. In order to drive a transport vehicle, it is imperative to have : 2 : M.A.C.A.No.1321OF 2009 & W.P.(C).NO.16735 OF 2009 a badge. Section 3 of the M.V. Act makes it crystal clear that no person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorising him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle unless his driving licence specifically entitles him so to do. So without a badge, one cannot drive a transport vehicle. When such transport vehicle is driven without a badge, it amounts to breach of the policy condition. The owner should have been more careful and should have ascertained from the driver regarding correctness of the licence. 2. Therefore I find that the tribunal was perfectly justified in holding that the driver did not have effective valid driving licence which amounts to breach of the policy condition which in turn permits the insurance company to get reimbursement from the owner. There is no merit in the appeal as well as in the writ petition. They are dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE cl : 3 : M.A.C.A.No.1321OF 2009 & W.P.(C).NO.16735 OF 2009 : 4 : M.A.C.A.No.1321OF 2009 & W.P.(C).NO.16735 OF 2009