IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 485 of 2003(P) ----------------------- OPMV.894/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, NORTH PARAVUR .................... APPELLANT/PETITIONER ---------------------------- JOHNY S/O. PAILY, MOOLANCHERRY HOUSE, P.O.MOOTHAKUNNAM, MADAPLANTHURUTH, NORTH PARUR. BY ADV. SRI.G.BALAMURALEEDHARAN (PARAVUR) SRI.MATHEWS V.JACOB (PARAVUR) SRI.N.T.NANDAKUMAR (PARAVUR) RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS ------------------------ 1. K.U.KRIPAL, KAMALAYAM, PERUVARAM, N.PARAVUR. 2. GIREESH O.P. S/O. PAPPU, ODIKKAMPRAMBIL HOUSE, MOOTHAKUNAM, ORAVANTHURUTH KARA. 3. UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD., THALASSERRY 670 101 BY ADV. SRI. MATHEWS V. JACOB FOR R3 ADV. SRI.JOHN KOSHY FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J. -------------------------- M.A.C.A. No. 485 OF 2003 --------------------- Dated this the 18th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, North Paravur, in OP(MV) 894/00. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.10,850/- with 9% interest and directed respondents 1 & 2 to pay the entire amount. It also exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability on the ground that there was no valid permit for the autorickshaw. It is challenging that decision, the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Heard the counsel appearing for both sides. The two fold contentions raised by the Insurance Company are that there was no valid driving licence as well as valid permit to ply the autorickshaw. As far as driving licence is concerned, it was held that since no steps were taken to prove the absence of driving licence, that contention was negatived. But so far as it related to the permit, an application was filed for summoning the permit. In spite of the same, the owner did not produce the same and so the court held that there was no evidence to prove the existence of a valid permit and MACA No. 485/03 2 therefore totally exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability. The claimant who was only a passenger in the autorickshaw is entitled to get compensation. Absence of a permit would only amount to a breach of policy condition. When there is only a breach of policy condition, the Insurance Company is bound to pay the amount to the claimant and get it reimbursed from the owner. Therefore the award under challenge is modified and the Insurance Company is directed to pay compensation to the claimant and on satisfaction of the same, the Insurance Company can recover it from the owner of the autorickshaw. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE vps MACA No. 485/03 3