IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH MAY 2010 / 5TH JYAISHTA 1932 MACA.No. 286 of 2010(F) ----------------------------------- [AGAINST THE AWARD DTD. 25/09/2007 IN O.P.(MV).NO.894/01 OF M.A.C.T, PATHANAMTHITTA] .......... APPELLANTS/RESPONDENT 2 AND 1: ------------------------------------------------------- 1. THE PARTNER, HI-TECH COATINGS, JOSE JUNCTION, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM. 2. BABU C.J., S/O.JOHNY, CHAKKALAKKAL HOUSE, MONODY, VELLIKULANGARA, MUKUNNAPURAM TALUK. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER AND 3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P(MV): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. SREEKUMAR, S/O.SIVADASAN PILLAI, KIZHAKKEDATHU HOUSE, PERUNNA WEST P.O., CHANGANASSERY. 2. THE BRANCH MANAGER, ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD., BRANCH OFFICE NO.1, DEEPTHI BUILDINGS, P.B.NO.2372, M.G.ROAD, ERNAKULAM, (3RD RESPONDENT IN O.P.(MV)'S). R2 BY ADV. SRI.RAJESH THOMAS. THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/05/2010, ALONG WITH M.A.C.A. NOS. 305/2010 AND 308/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: prv. M.N. KRISHNAN, J. ........................................... M.A.C.A.NOS.286, 305 &308 OF 2010 ............................................. Dated this the 26th day of May, 2010. J U D G M E N T These appeals are preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta in OP(MV)Nos.894/2001, 900/2001 and 901/2001. The short point that arises for determination is regardingthe right of the insurance company to get reimbursement of the amount on account of breach of the policy conditions found by the Tribunal. Breach of the policy conditions was found by the Tribunal on the ground that the driver did not have a driving licence or badge at the time of the accident. Admittedly, the vehicle involved is a tempo van. As per the latest decision of the Supreme Court, it is necessary to have a badge. By virtue of the amendment to Section 10 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the word transport vehicle has been substituted. Transport vehicle means a vehicle which is intended to carry the public or to transport goods of the public etc. So, necessarily the vehicle involved in the accident would be a transport vehicle. Under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, it is : 2 : M.A.C.A.NOS.286, 305 &308 OF 2010 imperative that in order to have a valid driving licence, the person must be authorised to drive a particular type of vehicle which he claims to drive. So when it is a transport vehicle, necessarily under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act, he requires a licence as well as a badge. The document produced before this Court shows about renewal of a licence as well as issuance of a badge. So far as light motor vehicle is concerned, it is seen that it is issued on 26.8.2000. The badge is also seen issued on 26.8.2000. If these documents are valid, it can be said that he was having a driving licence with badge. But the document produced before me is a photocopy. Therefore the matter requires evidence and detailed consideration. So, I am inclined to grant an opportunity. 2. In the result, the award is set aside so far as it relates to interse liability between the owner and the insurance company is concerned and both are permitted to give documentary as well as oral evidence in support of their respective contentions. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 3.7.2010. The appellant in these : 3 : M.A.C.A.NOS.286, 305 &308 OF 2010 cases is directed to produce the necessary documents of the case. Disposed of accordingly. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. cl : 4 : M.A.C.A.NOS.286, 305 &308 OF 2010