IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN THURSDAY, THE 8TH APRIL 2010 / 18TH CHAITHRA 1932 WP(C).No. 1911 of 2005(C) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- MR. P.P. GEORGE, PALLIPARAMBIL HOUSE, NEAR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, SOUTH KALAMASSERY. BY ADV. SMT.AYSHA YOUSEFF SMT.MOLLY JACOB SRI.RAFFEEKH.K SMT.VIDYA KUMARI.B.VAID SRI.JOBI.A.THAMPI SMT.RABIA BEGAM T.K. RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. THE DIVISIONAL MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., DIVISIONAL OFFICE, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPUNITHURA-682 301. 2. THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTO, REGD.OFFICE : ORIENTAL HOUSE, P.B.NO.7037, A-25/27 ASAF ALI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110 002. ADV. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 8.4.2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C).No. 1911/05. APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS P1. COPY OF THE INSURANCE POLICY. P2. COPY OF THE LETTER DTD.13.10.03 OF R1. P3. COPY OF THE COMPLAINT DTD.3.11.03. P4. COPY OF THE AWARD OF THE OMBUDSMAN DTD.3.11.03 P5. COPY OF THE DRIVING LICENCE OF BENNY JACOB. P6. COPY OF THE LICENCE GRANTED BY MV TAXATION ACT. sdk+ ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== W.P.(C).No. 1911 of 2005 ================== Dated this the 8th day of April, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner in this writ petition is the owner of a Maruti Omni 5 classified as a Light Motor Vehicle. That vehicle met with an accident on 6.6.2003. The said vehicle was insured with the 2nd respondent - insurance company. In respect of the damages caused to the vehicle, the petitioner, as the owner of the vehicle, raised an insurance claim, which was repudiated on the ground that the driver of the vehicle, viz., one Mr.Benny Jacob, did not have the necessary endorsement in his licence for driving a Light Motor Vehicle as a transport vehicle. The petitioner approached the Insurance Ombudsman and by Ext.P4 order, the Insurance Ombudsman upheld the contentions of the insurance company. It is under the above circumstances, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging Ext.P4 order. 2. The contention of the petitioner is that the driver had the driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle. According to petitioner, he was actually at the relevant time not driving the vehicle as a transport vehicle, but was using the vehicle for transporting his family. Therefore, according to the petitioner, Ext.P4 order of repudiation of the insurance claim by the Insurance Ombudsman is bad and liable to be interfered with. w.p.c.1911/05 2 3. On the other hand, the insurance company would contend that insofar as the vehicle was registered as a light motor vehicle for transport, without endorsement in the licence authorising the driver to drive a transport vehicle, the insurance company cannot be made liable. They rely on the decision of the Supreme Court in New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal [2007 AIR SCW 7677]. 4. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 5. In the decision cited by the counsel for the respondents, the Supreme Court has categorically held that simply because at the relevant time of the accident, the vehicle was not being used as a transport vehicle, the driving of the vehicle by a driver holding a licence without an endorsement for driving transport vehicle cannot saddle the insurance company with liability. In this case, the vehicle was in fact a transport vehicle. Therefore, the ratio of the above said decision squarely applies to the facts of this case. Accordingly, following that judgment, I uphold the impugned orders and dismiss the writ petition. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge w.p.c.1911/05 3