IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.KOSHY & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K.HEMA WEDNESDAY, THE 9TH JANUARY 2008 / 19TH POUSHA 1929 MFA.No. 271 of 2001() --------------------- OPMV.1847/1995 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT: PETITIONER: ----------- DAVIS 2 M.R.DEVASSY, S/O. RAPPAI, MUTHIPEEDIKA HOUSE, THAIKKATTUSSERY P.O., THRISSUR. BY ADV. SRI.P.V.BABY SRI.A.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. P.K.MANOJKUMAR, PERINCHERY HOUSE, PERINCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. 2. P.J.JOSEPH, S/O. JOHN, PULIKOTTIL HOUSE, PERINCHERY P.O., THRISSUR. 3. NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BRANCH THRISSUR. BY ADV. SMT.SARAH SALVY FOR R3 THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9-1-2008 THE COURT ON 09/01/2008 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: J.B. Koshy & K. Hema, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - M.F.A. No. 271 of 2001 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 9th day of January,2008 JUDGMENT Koshy, J. Appellant/petitioner claimed an amount of Rs.7,21,500/- before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. He had sustained injury in a motor accident on 11-6-1995. The tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the 2nd respondent driver of the vehicle. 1st respondent was the owner of the vehicle (4th respondent before the tribunal). The vehicle was covered by an insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent. The tribunal found that insurance policy was taken by the 1st respondent and he was not the registered owner and therefore the policy was invalid. The tribunal directed that 1st respondent owner and 2nd respondent driver of the vehicle to deposit the compensation. The compensation awarded was only Rs.86,000/-. 2. The appellant has suffered crush injury to the left ankle with compound comminuted fracture to tallus and lateral aspect of tibia. Extensor tendons of foot were cut. There was dislocation to the first toe also. Wound debridment and suturing were done. Pieces of talus were MFA 271/2001 2 excised. Tendons were repaired. He produced a medical certificate assessing 20% disability. Considering the injuries, no enhancement of compensation is needed. 3. With regard to the liability to pay the amount, the contention of the Insurance Company is that the 1st respondent was not the owner of the vehicle . At the time of the accident, the vehicle was covered by insurance policy issued by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company. Hence, Insurance Company is liable to pay compensation to third parties as held by the Apex Court in Rikhi Ram and another V. Smt. Sukhrania and others (AIR 2003 SC 1446) and in G. Govindan V. New India Assurance Company Ltd. (AIR 1999 SC 1398). Statutory liability of the Insurance Company is to deposit the amount and recover the amount from the insured, if there is violation of policy condition. At the same time, it was proved that driver was not having the driving licence. Hence, there is violation of policy condition. In the above circumstances, after depositing the amount the Insurance company can recover the amount from the 1st respondent (same as the 4th respondent) in execution of the award itself as held by the Supreme Court in MFA 271/2001 3 National Insurance Company Ltd. V. Swaran Singh and others (AIR 2004 SC 1531) and in United India Insurance Company Ltd. V. Lehru and others (AIR 2003 SC 1292). 4. In the result, the award is modified. The amount as awarded by the tribunal should be deposited by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company and the Insurance Company is entitled to get the amount recovered from the 1st respondent. J.B. Koshy, Judge. K. Hema, Judge. mn.