IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 18TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 27TH BHADRA 1930 MACA.No. 2082 of 2005() ----------------------- OPMV.593/1999 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, THALASSERY .................... : APPELLANTS --------------------------- 1. K.AITHAPP ALWA, S/O.RAMAYYA ALWA, NARAYANAN MANGALA, H.NO.VII-164, P.O.KUMBALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.SUBHANNA ALWA, S/O.AITHAPPA ALWA, SHETTY GODHAI HOUSE, KOYIPPADI VILLAGE, P.O.KUMBALA, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.C.MURALIKRISHNAN (PAYYANUR) RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL INSURANCE CO. LTD., BENEDICTAL SHOPPING COMPLEX, M-6 ROAD, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. K.V.VIPIN DAS, S/O.VIJAYAN, AGED 16 YEARS (MINOR) REPRESENTED BY GUARDIAN AND MOTHER K.V.OMANA, W/O.VIJAYAN, KANDOTH VALAPPIL HOUSE, PO MORAZHA, (VIA) MOTTAMMAL, KANNUR DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.JOE KALLIATH FOR R1 SRI.K.C.SANTHOSHKUMAR SMT.K.K.CHANDRALEKHA THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 18/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N.KRISHNAN, J ===================== MACA No.2082 OF 2005 ===================== Dated this the 18th day of September 2008 JUDGMENT This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thalassery in O.P.(MV)No.593 of 1999. The Tribunal awarded a compensation of Rs.39,700/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount to the claimant and later recover it from the first respondent. It is challenging that decision, respondents 1 and 2 in the claim petition have come up in appeal. 2. The liability to reimburse the amount was ordered on the basis that the 2nd respondent in the claim application did not have a valid driving license in the sense that he did not have the badge or authorization under law to drive transport vehicle. Therefore the Tribunal held that there is breach of policy conditions and so gave a verdict in favour of the insurance company for getting reimbursement. Learned counsel for the appellant contends before me that really a badge is not at all necessary to drive a taxi or a motor cab as provided under Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 3(1) of the said Act reads as follows: MACA 2082/2005 -:2:- “Section 3(1). No person shall drive a motor vehicle in any public place unless he holds an effective driving licence issued to him authorizing him to drive the vehicle; and no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub-section(2) of section 75 unless his driving licence specifically titles him so to do”. 3. Learned counsel lays emphasis “no person shall so drive a transport vehicle other than a motor cab or motor cycle hired for his own use or rented under any scheme made under sub section (2) of Section 75. This envisages a situation where a person takes a vehicle for his own use. In such situation, he need not have a badge. A person holding a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle may drive a motor cab hired by him for his own use or rented under a scheme under Section 75. This provision envisages a situation where a person on a contractual basis or for a hire or reward takes a vehicle for his own use. But so far as this case is concerned, the vehicle is a taxi. It is being used to carry public or in other words it is a public passenger vehicle. Therefore the contention of the learned counsel that Section 3 does not require a driver of a motor cab which is plied as a taxi not to have a badge cannot be accepted. Under Section 10 there was an amendment by Act 54 of 1994 which came into effect from 14.11.1994. MACA 2082/2005 -:3:- Clauses (e) to (h) were substituted as one clause (e) which reads as 'transport vehicle'. The old clause related to (e)medium goods' vehicle, (f) medium passenger motor vehicle, (g) heavy goods vehicle, (h)heavy passenger motor vehicle. A taxi will come under the category 'medium passenger motor vehicle'. That medium passenger motor vehicle becomes a transport vehicle in the light of the amendment. Therefore a taxi which is used for the purpose become a transport vehicle which requires a licence to drive a transport vehicle. This 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), where the Apex Court held that light motor vehicle would not include a light transport vehicle and held that licence to drive a transport vehicle is necessary to satisfy the condition of a duly authorized or duly valid licence. Therefore in the light of these discussions, it has to be held that the driver did not have a valid and due licence to drive a taxi car on the date of accident and it causes a fundamental breach of the policy conditions and therefore the insurance company is entitled to get reimbursement from the owner of the vehicle. I do not find any ground to interfere with the decision rendered by the Tribunal and therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. Considering the quantum involved, I direct the insurance company to MACA 2082/2005 -:4:- grant a period of 3 months time from today for payment by the owner and on failure, to proceed in accordance with law for recovery of the amount. M.N.KRISHNAN, JUDGE Cdp/-