IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 12TH JUNE 2008 / 22ND JYAISHTA 1930 MACA.No. 1856 of 2006() ---------------------------------- APPELLANT/1ST RESPONDENT: --------------------- U. SREENIVASAN, S/O.UNNIYAPPA MOOTHAN, AGED 38 YEARS, KARNAKI NAGAR, MOOTHANTHARA, PALAKKAD. BY ADV. SRI.U.BALAGANGADHARAN RESPONDENTS:PETITIONER & 2ND RESPONDENT ----------------------- 1. U. MALATHY, AGED 44 YEARS, W/O.C.P. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, LAKSHMI NILAYAM, KAYARAMKULAM P.O., THENKURUSSI, PALAKKAD. 2. THE NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO.LTD., THANIKKAL BUILDINGS, MAIN ROAD, OTTAPALAM. BY ADV. SRI.C.A.CHACKO SRI.LAL GEORGE - R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 12/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== M.A.C.A.No.1856 OF 2006 ===================== Dated this the 12th day of June 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)No.202 of 1999. A pedestrian sustained injuries in a road accident and he had been awarded a compensation of Rs.22,800/-. The insurance company is directed to pay the amount and get it reimbursed from the owner-cum-driver of the autorickshaw. Appeal is preferred by the owner-cum-driver challenging the finding of the Tribunal with respect to the factum of reimbursement as well as the quantum. Learned counsel persuasively submits before me that it is true that there was no valid fitness certificate for the vehicle at the time of the accident. He would submit before me that it was on account of the fact that the vehicle was garaged and the accident took place when a trial run was being taken. He would draw my attention to the decision of the Supreme Court in National Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Swaran Singh(2004(1) KLT 781(SC) and specifically refers to clause 6 of paragraph 102 where it is stated that the absence of a license must be so fundamental so is found to MACA 1856/2006 -:2:- have contributed to the cause of the accident. Learned counsel would submit that a similar analogy is to be drawn in this case and the court has to apply its mind whether the lack of certificate of fitness has caused the accident. It has to be stated that certificate of fitness is one issued for the purpose of plying the vehicle especially a commercial vehicle along the road and the special object behind is to see that it is properly maintained and therefore it does not cause any difficulty to others. It is so fundamental in character and it may not be proper to state that even in the absence of a certificate of fitness the court has to hold that it has not contributed to the accident. There are definite provisions under the Motor Vehicles Act which mandates such certificate of fitness as is seen from Section 56 of the Act. Therefore, I am not in a position to accept the submission of the learned counsel that it will be something which is fundamental that has caused the accident. So far as a driving license is concerned, there may be various factors such as total callous negligence of the opposite vehicle that could have resulted in the accident. In such a situation, the absence of a driving license of one may not be taken as a ground for holding that the accident took place on account of the negligence of the driver. So far as the certificate of fitness is concerned, it is issued for plying the vehicle. When it is absent, there is total lacking and therefore there is not only breach of law, but also there is breach of MACA 1856/2006 -:3:- policy conditions and only vehicles which are fit are permitted to be operated along the road. Therefore I decline to interfere with the decision on that point. 3. So far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, slight excessiveness is there for the reason that under some heads the amount is awarded little liberally. Now a situation has arisen that the amount has been withdrawn and taken by the claimant and for this nominal difference, if I interfere at this stage, it will cause embarrassment to all and therefore I do not interfere with the same. 4. Lastly learned counsel would submit that at least a breathing time may be given for payment of the amount. Considering the fact that the appellant is a driver-cum-owner and considering the financial difficulty, I grant him six months time to pay the amount. Whatever the amount is deposited before the Tribunal by the owner can be withdrawn by the insurance company. If revenue recovery proceedings is already initiated, let it be stalled for a period of six months. MACA is disposed of as above. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/- MACA 1856/2006 -:4:-