IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 28TH AUGUST 2008 / 6TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 626 of 2007(A) ----------------------------- OPMV.627/2000 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD .................... APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT -------------------------------------- THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., PALAKKAD, REPRESENTED BY ITS ASSISTANT MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18. BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA) RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANT --------------------------------- 1. ABRAHAM, S/O JOSEPH, PIDISSCRYMALA, KOTTEKULAM, KORONCHIRA, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 2. C.A.ISMAIL, S/O ASSANAR, 4/274, CHEERAKUZHI HOUSE, KIZHAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKKAD DT. 3. T.SANKARAN, S/O THAMBAN, PORALI VEEDU, KIZHAKKANCHERRY, ALATHUR TALUK, PALAKAD DT. BY ADV. SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN FOR R1 SRI.BABY MATHEW FOR R1 SRI.S.M.PREM FOR R2 & 3 SMT.K.P.SANTHI FOR R2 & 3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28/08/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON I.A.879 OF 2007 IN M.A.C.A. NO. 626 OF 2007 DISMISSED 28/8/08 SD/- M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. [ True Copy ] P.A. TO JUDGE. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 626 OF 2007 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 28th day of August, 2008. J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad in O.P.(MV)627/00. The claimant sustained injuries in a road accident. He was travelling as a pillion rider on a motor bike and it collided with a jeep as a result of which he sustained injuries. 3rd respondent filed a written statement contending that the 2nd respondent was not holding a valid badge to drive a transport vehicle and therefore there is breach of policy conditions and hence the insurance company is to be exonerated from the liability. On a consideration of the entire materials the Tribunal granted an award of Rs.92,000/- and also repelled the contention of the insurance company holding that the driver was having a licence to drive light motor vehicle. 2. The vehicle involved in the accident is a taxi jeep. A perusal of the award would reveal that the driver was only M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007 -:2:- having the licence to drive a light motor vehicle. A taxi jeep will come within the definition of a transport vehicle because it is intended to carry passengers. S.2(47) of the M.V.Act defines transport vehicle. It means, 'a public service vehicle, a goods carriage and an educational institution bus or a private service vehicle'. The definition is so wide necessarily a taxi jeep will come within the ambit of a transport vehicle as defined u/s 2(47) of the Act. When it is so what will be the legal position has been considered by the Apex Court in the decision reported in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Roshanben Rahemansha Fakir (2008 (3) TAC 20(SC). It was held in that case that the vehicle is used as a transport vehicle. S.3 and 10 of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules and R.51 envisages a licence to drive a transport vehicle. So the mere possession of a driving licence to drive light motor vehicle will not cover the situation. As stated by me earlier being a taxi jeep it is to be considered as a light M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007 -:3:- transport vehicle and therefore the mere possession of a licence to drive a light motor vehicle may not be sufficient in a case of this nature. Therefore there was no valid, effective driving licence for the driver to drive the vehicle and therefore there is breach of policy conditions. It was the duty of the owner to entrust the vehicle to a duly licensed driver and in the absence of the same he cannot escape from the liability. Therefore, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company is totally liable cannot be accepted. Being a third party the claimant is entitled to be compensated by the insurance company and the insurance company is entitled to get it reimbursed from the owner of the vehicle namely first respondent in the case. So far as the quantum is concerned the amount awarded is only reasonable and that does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal is party allowed and the finding that the insurance company is totally liable is set M.A.C.A. 626 OF 2007 -:4:- aside. The insurance company is directed to deposit the amount in favour of the claimant and on deposit, is entitled to get it reimbursed from the first respondent in the claim petition by execution of the same award. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-