IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.N.KRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 1ST JANUARY 2009 / 11TH POUSHA 1930 MACA.No. 1249 of 2008(D) -------------------------------- OPMV.691/2004 of MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, MUVATTUPUZHA .................... APPELLANT(S): /PETITIONER ---------------------------------- SHANOJ @ ANI ,S/O. SREEDHARAN RESIDING AT PEROMTHATTIL HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR KARA ARAKUZHA VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA. BY ADV. SMT.ANEY PAUL RESPONDENT(S) RESPONDENTS : -------------------------------------- 1. SEEDHARAN N. PERUMTHATTIL HOUSE PERUMBALLOOR KARA, ARAKUZHA VILLAGE MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. SANTHOSH JOSEPH S/O. JOSEPH NELLIKUNNUMPURATH HOUSE, PERUMBALLOOR KARA, MUVATTUPUZHA. 3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO.LTD MUVATTUPUZHA. ADV. SRI.VPK.PANICKER FOR R3 THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 01/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.N. KRISHNAN, J. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = M.A.C.A. NO. 1249 OF 2008 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Dated this the 1st day of January, 2009 J U D G M E N T This appeal is preferred against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(MV)691/04. The relationship between the claimant and the owner of the auto rickshaw is that of a father and son. The Tribunal awarded a total compensation of Rs.17,900/- and directed the insurance company to pay the amount and get it recovered from respondents 1 and 2. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that there is some unholy alliance between the father and son and therefore directed the insurance company to pay the amount only on furnishing of security by the first respondent, father. The Tribunal has ordered recovery also from respondents 1 and 2. It is against that decision the claimant has come up in appeal. 2. Mainly the argument is regarding the quantum. A perusal of the award from paragraphs 11 to 19 would show that the claimant had sustained fracture on the clavicle and M.A.C.A. 1249 OF 2008 -:2:- fracture on the ribs. He had tenderness over those parts and he was treated as an inpatient in the hospital from 21.3.04 to 25.3.04. The Tribunal took his income at Rs.2,500/- and granted a compensation for 45 days loss of earnings, Rs.7,500/- is granted for pain and sufferings and Rs.4,000/- for loss of amenities. It also reasonably compensated the claimant on all other heads and considering the nature of injuries, the period of hospitalisation etc. I feel the amount awarded is only just and reasonable that does not call for any interference. 3. So far as the liability is concerned the driver of the auto rickshaw did not have a valid badge to drive an auto rickshaw. U/s 2(47) of the M.V.Act an auto rickshaw also becomes a transport vehicle since it is being used for carrying public. When such is the situation the matter 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). The Apex Court took note of various decisions and regulations, the definition of transport vehicle and held that in order to drive a vehicle which carries public one requires adequate licence M.A.C.A. 1249 OF 2008 -:3:- and badge and therefore when it is not there the insurance company is entitled for raising the defence. It was argued in that case that an auto rickshaw is a light Motor Vehicle having a unladen weight of less than 7,500/- Kg. and therefore licence to drive a light motor vehicle will be sufficient and there will not be any breach of policy conditions. But the Apex Court held that there is a specific requirement of a licence to drive a transport vehicle and it was a case where a goods auto rickshaw was involved. In the light of this it has to be held that one should have the badge as well to drive an auto rickshaw. It has to be held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the insurance company is entitled for recovery right from the owner. So that finding also does not call for any interference. So far as the direction to furnish security is concerned the Tribunal has smelt some unholy alliance between the father and son and so it had given a direction. That also does not call for any interference. Therefore the appeal lacks merit and it is dismissed. M.N. KRISHNAN, JUDGE. ul/-