IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI WEDNESDAY, THE 14TH JULY 2010 / 23RD ASHADHA 1932 MACA.No. 2273 of 2009 ----------------------- OPMV.2073/1996 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM .................... APPELLANT(S): 1ST RESPONDENT IN OPMV2073/96: -------------------------------------------- J.ANIL KUMAR, S/O.JANARDHANAN NAMBOODIRI 7B, HEERA DAIL, JAGATHY, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.S.K.BALACHANDRAN SRI.A.S.FARIDIN RESPONDENT(S): CLAIMANT & RESPONDENTS 2&3 IN OPMV.2073/96: ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. M.J.CLIFF @ CLIFF JOSEPH, S/O.JOSEPH, MALIACKAL HOUSE, PUTHENPALLY, VARAPUZHA P.O., PIN 683 517. 2. L.RAJENDRAN, S/O.LAKSHMANA PANICKER, MEDAYIL HOUSE, ULLUR, MEDICAL COLLEGE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, M.G.ROAD, COCHIN-35. ADV. SRI.R.SUDHISH FOR R1 SMT.M.MANJU FOR R1 SRI.RAJESH THOMAS FOR R3 SRI.SOJAN MICHEAL FOR R2 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 14/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: A.K. BASHEER & P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ M.A.C.A. 2273 of 2009 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated: JULY 14, 2010 JUDGMENT Barkath Ali, J. The short question which arises for consideration is whether in motor accidents claim the insurer/Insurance Company can be absolved of the liability to indemnify the insured merely because the driver has not renewed his licence on the date of accident. 2. The appellant is the 1st respondent in OP(MV) 2073/1996 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ernakulam. He is the registered owner of the car bearing registration No.KEE 3744 involved in a motor accident. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the OP under sec.166 of the Motor Vehicles Act claiming a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the loss caused to him on account of the injuries sustained in a motor accident which occurred on April 23, 1995 at 2.55 p.m. at Varappuzha Chirackakom on the Varappuzha - Paravur road, alleging negligence against the 2nd respondent in the OP, the driver of the car. The 1st respondent in the OP was the registered owner and the 3rd respondent was the Insurer of the offending car. 3. PWs.1 to 3 and RWs.1 and 2 were examined and Exts.A1 to A10 and Exts.B1 and B2 were marked and the Tribunal by its award dated January 14, 2002 found that the accident occurred due to M.A.C.A. 2273 of 2009 2 the negligence of 2nd respondent in the OP, the driver of the car, and awarded a compensation of Rs.66,650/- against respondents 1 to 3 in the OP. Challenging the said award the 3rd respondent filed MFA 1330/2002 before this Court contending that the contention of the Insurance Company regarding non-possession of licence by the 2nd respondent in the OP and consequent liability of the Insurance Company was not properly considered by the Tribunal. This Court by judgment dated July 3, 2008 accepted the above contention of the insurer and set aside the award to the limited extent of casting total liability on the Insurance Company and to decide afresh the liability of the Insurance Company in the light of the contention raised by the insurance company that the 2nd respondent, the driver, was not holding a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and that therefore the Insurance Company cannot be made liable. 4. After remand Ext.B3 was marked and the Tribunal by the impugned award found that the 2nd respondent was not holding a valid and effective licence at the time of the accident and ordered the Insurance Company to satisfy the award and permitted the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant who is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the above award of the Tribunal, the 1st respondent in the OP has now come up in appeal. 5. The counsel for the appellant/1st respondent argued that M.A.C.A. 2273 of 2009 3 merely because the 2nd respondent has not renewed his driving licence during the period of accident, it cannot be said that he was not duly licensed to drive vehicle, that therefore there is no breach of condition of policy and hence the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the owner. 6. The counsel for the Insurance Company submitted that as on the date of the accident the 2nd respondent was not holding a valid driving licence and that therefore the Tribunal is perfectly justified in permitting the Insurance Company to recover the award amount from the insured, the appellant. 7. In Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Paulose {2004 (1) KLT 8 (F.B.)} a Full Bench of this Court has considered a similar question. In that case the accident occurred on May 23, 1997 and the licence of the driver expired on 30.11.1996 and was renewed subsequently on 18.6.1997. Interpreting the provisions of Sec.149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, it has been held therein that there will be a breach of condition of policy only when the driver was not duly licensed or has been disqualified from holding or obtaining driving licence and that thus if the licence had expired on the date of accident but was subsequently renewed, it would fulfill the mandate of the statute. 8. In our view the principle laid down in the above decision squarely applies to the facts of the present case. It is seen from Ext.B3, the copy of licence particulars issued by the licensing authority M.A.C.A. 2273 of 2009 4 that the licence of 2nd respondent was seen renewed on March 17, 1991, the validity of which is upto March 16, 1994 and thereafter a duplicate licence was issued on May 5, 1995. The accident was on April 23, 1995. Thus the 2nd respondent has not renewed his licence on the date of the accident. 9. Thus, applying the principles laid down in the above decision we hold that even if the driving licence of the 2nd respondent had expired on the date of accident, but was subsequently renewed, he has to be considered as a duly licensed person and the insurer cannot so long as the policy is admitted, avoid liability to compensate the injured or to indemnify the insured, as none of the conditions in the policy comes within Sec.149(2) of the Act has been violated in this case. That being so, the Insurance Company is bound to indemnify the appellant/owner of the offending vehicle. In the result, the judgment of the Tribunal that the Insurance Company is given the right of recovery of the award amount from the appellant/1st respondent is set aside. The appeal is disposed of as found above. A.K. BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q. BARKATH ALI, JUDGE mt/-