IMPORTANT POINT
Where, the driver of the vehicle was having a valid driving licence, but did not have a driving licence to drive a transport vehicle, for the third parties the insurance company cannot be permitted to contend that it has no liability even on the ground that there is violation of terms and conditions of the policy.

JUDGMENT

M.Y. Eqbal, J.:

Leave granted.

2. The right of the victim of a road accident to claim compensation is a statutory one. The Parliament in its wisdom inserted the relevant provisions in the Motor Vehicles Act in order to protect the victims of road accident travelling in the vehicle or using the road and thereby made it obligatory that no motor vehicle shall be used unless the vehicle is compulsorily insured against third party risk. In this background, can an Insurance Company disown its liability on the ground that the driver of the vehicle although duly licensed to drive light motor vehicle but there was no endorsement in the licence to drive light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle. This is the sole question arises for consideration in this appeal.

3. This appeal by special leave arises in the following circumstances.

4. On 23.5.1998, at about 8.30 P.M., when the deceased named Charles was riding his bicycle from east to west and reached in front of one house, one Sivananayaitha Perumal (driver of the vehicle who remained ex parte in the proceedings) came from west to east direction driving a Mahindra van at high speed and dashed against Charles and ran away without stopping the vehicle. Charles, who was admitted in a hospital, succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. It is evident from the Motor Vehicle Inspector’s Report that the accident did not occur due to mechanical defect. On the claim petition filed by deceased’s wife (respondent No.2 herein), the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Principal District Judge) at Kanyakumari (in short, “Tribunal”), after considering the evidence on record, awarded a compensation of Rs.2,42,400/- with interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition – to be paid by the respondents before the Tribunal jointly and severally. The Tribunal was of the view that the person possessing licence to drive light motor vehicle is entitled to drive Mahindra maxi cab.

5. Insurance company preferred an appeal before the High Court challenging the judgment and award of the Tribunal. The Insurance Company did not dispute the quantum of compensation, but questioned the liability itself submitting that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid driving licence to drive the vehicle on that day. Insurance company referred the decisions of this Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. v. Prabhu Lal 2008 (1) SCC 696 and Sardari & Ors. v. Sushil Kumar & Ors. 2008 ACJ 1307 and submitted that a person having licence to drive light motor vehicle is not authorized to drive a commercial vehicle.

6. Per contra, on behalf of the claimant, this Court’s decisions in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 3181 and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria alias Nesaragi and ors., 2008 (3) SCC 464 were referred and it was contended that a person who is having a licence to drive light motor vehicle can drive the commercial vehicle also.

7. After hearing the learned counsel on either side and considering the aforesaid decisions, the High Court relying upon Sardari’s case (supra), observed that since the vehicle was being used as a taxi, which is a commercial vehicle, the driver of the said vehicle was required to hold an appropriate licence. Hence, there being a breach of the condition of the contract of insurance, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the claimant. The view taken by the High Court is quoted hereinbelow:-

“It has not been disputed that the vehicle was being used as a taxi, which is a commercial vehicle. The driver of the said vehicle was required to hold an appropriate license therefore. The third respondent herein, who was driving the said vehicle at the relevant time, was holder of a license to drive a light motor vehicle only. He did not possess any license to drive a commercial vehicle. In the present case, R.W.2 has deposed that the driver of the vehicle was not having the license to drive a commercial vehicle on the date o