IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI TUESDAY, THE 5TH OCTOBER 2010 / 13TH ASWINA 1932 MACA.No. 88 of 2003(C) ---------------------- OPMV.1935/1997 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, KOTTAYAM .................... APPELLANT(S): THIRD RESPONDENT -------------- THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED KOTTAYAM NOW REP. BY ITS ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G. ROAD, KOCHI - 11 BY ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONERS AND RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2 --------------- 1. SANTHAMMA K.G., PULINAKKAL HOUSE VELOOR P.O., KOTTAYAM 2. SINDHU P.R., DO. DO. 3. BINDU P.R., DO. DO. 4. BINU P.R., DO. DO. 5. VINODU P.R., DO. DO. 6. KARTHIYANI , DO. DO. 7. K.P.SHAJIMON, MOOLAMKULAM, CHINGAVANAM P.O. KOTTAYAM 8. PURUSHAN, S/O THANKAPPAN, CHANGAMMATHA HOUSE PULIKKAMATTOM, VELOOR P.O. , KOTTAYAM ADV. SRI.K.GOPALAKRISHNA KURUP, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R8 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.A.C.A.No.88 OF 2003 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 5th day of October, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. In this appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act by the Insurance Company/third respondent in the O.P., the question which arises for consideration is whether in the case of a motor accident, if the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle expired prior to the accident which was renewed thereafter, would amount to violation of the condition in the Insurance Policy entitling the Insurance Company to recover the compensation amount from the owner and driver of the offending vehicle. 2. Respondents 1 to 6 in this appeal,who are the claimants in O.P.(MV)No.1935/1997 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam filed the O.P. before the Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs. 4,00,000/- for the loss caused to them on account of the death of Sri.Rajan in a motor accident. Claimants are his wife, children and mother. The accident happened while the deceased was MACA.NO.88/2003 2 cycling along Thiruvathukkal-Puthanangadi road on September 13, 1997 at about 7.45 p.m., he was knocked down by the motor cycle bearing Reg.No.KLO 8875 ridden by the second respondent in the O.P.. Alleging negligence against the second respondent, the claimants filed the O.P. before the Tribunal against respondents 1 to 3, the owner, rider and insurer of the offending motor cycle. 3. Respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and the rider of the offending motor cycle though entered appearance did not file any written statement before the Tribunal. The third respondent, the insurer of the offending motor cycle filed a written statement admitting the accident, but attributed negligence to the claimants. 4. PW1 was examined and Exts.A1 to A8 were marked on the side of the claimants before the Tribunal. Ext.B1 was marked on the side of the contesting third respondent. On an appreciation of evidence, the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent and awarded a compensation of Rs. 3,67,000/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realisation and proportionate cost. The third respondent Insurance MACA.NO.88/2003 3 Company has come up in appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal in not granting recovery right to the appellant as the second respondent, the rider of the offending motor cycle had no valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 5. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the counsel for the claimants. 6. The only question which arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the second respondent in the O.P., the rider of the offending motor cycle had a valid driving licence at the time of the accident, if not whether the appellant Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount awarded from respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P., the owner and the rider of the offending motor cycle. In other words, the question would be whether it can be said that there is violation of the conditions of Insurance policy, if the driving licence of the driver of the offending vehicle in the motor accident has expired prior to the accident which he renewed subsequently . 7. The Apex Court has held in Ishwar Chandra and others v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. and others ( 2007 ACJ 1067) and in Ram MACA.NO.88/2003 4 Babu Tiwari v. United India Insurance Co.Ltd and others ( 2008 ACJ 2654) that in such a circumstance, there will be violation of the condition of insurance policy and the Insurance company is entitled to recover the compensation amount awarded from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle. It is provided under Section 15 of the Motor Vehicles Act that only in the event of an application for renewal of licence is filed within a period of thirty days from the date expired therein, the same would be renewed automatically, which means that even if an accident had occurred within the aforementioned period, the driver would be possessing a valid driving licence. If the licence is renewed beyond the period of the said thirty days, it cannot be said that the driver was holding a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. 8. In the present case, the driving licence of the second respondent, the driver of the offending motor cycle expired in 1992 and was renewed on September 17, 1997. The accident happened on September 13, 1997. Therefore, the second respondent cannot be said to have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident which amount MACA.NO.88/2003 5 to breach of the condition of the Insurance Policy. It follows and we find that the appellant/Insurance Company is entitled to recover compensation amount from respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P. i.e. the owner and the rider of the offending motor cycle. 9. As regards the adequacy of the compensation awarded, this court by order dated June 12, 2003 has found that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable. In the result, the appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE sv. MACA.NO.88/2003 6