Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2044
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
Sathi Kumar S/o.Krishna Pillai - Appellant
Versus
Sathi Devi - Respondent
MACA No. 2268 of 2014
Decided on : 24-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SRI.P.K.ABDU RAHEEM, SRI.P.CHANDRASEKHAR, SRI.S.PRASANTH, SMT.SREELATHA PARAMESWARAN NAIR, SRI.SOORAJ T.ELENJICKAL, SRI.ABHILASH T.
For the Respondent: SMT.CINZIA RAJU, SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD, SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY
A technical deviation from authorized routes does not amount to a fundamental breach of policy conditions under the Motor Vehicles Act, allowing liability for compensation to remain intact.
Headnote:(A) Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 - Section 166 - Motor vehicle accident - Finding of negligence on part of driver - Compensation awarded by Tribunal was Rs.11,10,000, which was challenged regarding insurer's right to recover from driver and owner for policy breach. The court examined whether the deviation in route constituted a violation of policy conditions. It found that taking the autorickshaw into the Thiruvananthapuram city limit was only a technical violation, not a fundamental breach, and thus parties could not evade liability. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 11)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was the driver of an autorickshaw involved in an accident that caused the death of the deceased. The petitioners claimed compensation while the insurer contested negligence. The Tribunal awarded compensation and allowed the insurer to recover from the driver and owner.
Findings of Court:
The Tribunal's decision to allow the insurer to recover compensation was overturned as no fundamental breach occurred due to the route deviation.
Issues: Whether the driver's conduct amounted to a violation of policy condition due to using an unauthorized route.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that minor deviations in the route do not equate to a breach of policy as long as the vehicle was used for its permitted purpose.
Result: Appeal allowed, insurer cannot recover costs from owner and driver.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. negligence in the motor vehicle accident. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. insurance company's liability disputed. (Para 4 , 8) |
| 3. tribunal awarded compensation based on evidence. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 4. appeal allowed; award set aside. (Para 7) |
| 5. violation of policy condition not established. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
C.PRATHEEP KUMAR, J.
The additional respondent No.3 in O.P.(M.V.) No.187/2006 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara is the appellant herein. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the Tribunal).
2. The O.P. was filed under under Section 166 of the MOTOR VEHICLES ACT , 1988, by the legal representatives of the deceased by name Sadasivan Nair, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred on 14.10.2005. According to them, on 14.10.2005, at about 3.45 p.m. while the deceased was riding a scooter, an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-01Q-3949, driven by the 3rd respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit him down and as a result of which he fell down and sustained serious injuries and succumbed to the injuries on the same day.
3. The 1st respondent is the owner, the 2nd respondent is the insurer and 3rd respondent is the driver of the offending vehicle. According to the petitioners, the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The quantum of compensation claimed in the O.P. was Rs.15,00,000/-.
4. The insurance company filed a written statement, admitting the accident as well as policy, but disputing the negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle.
5. The evidence in the case consists of the oral testimony of RW1 and documentary evidence Exts.A1 to A15, B1 and B2.
6. After evaluating the evidence on record, the Tribunal found negligence on the part of the driver of the offending vehicle, awarded a total compensation of Rs.11,09,284/- rounded to Rs.11,10,000/-, directed the 2nd respondent/insurer to pay the same and thereafter permitted the 2nd respondent to recover the same from respondents 1 and 3 for the reason that the 3rd respondent took the autorickshaw to Thiruvananthapuram city limit, in which it was prohibited from entering, as per the terms of Exhibit B2 permit.
7. Aggrieved by the above awarded, to the extent it permitted the 2nd respondent from recovering the compensation from the respondents 1 and 3, the 3rd respondent preferred this appeal.
8. Now the point that arises for consideration is the following:
Whether the conduct of the 3rd respondent in taking the auto rickshaw into Thiruvananthapuram city limit amounts to violation of policy condition?
9. Heard Sri Abhilash T, the learned Counsel on behalf of Sri. P. Parameswaran Nair, the learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.John Joseph Vettikkad, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent/insurer.
10. The learned counsel for the appellant relying upon the decision of a Karnataka High Court in Maliyamma v. H. Kumarswamy and Others in MFA.No.101944 of 2015 would argue that in a similar instance, the Karnataka High Court held that plying autorickshaw through route which is not permitted in the permit does not amount to violation of policy condition.
In the said judgment, the learned judge held in paragraph 6, as follows:
“6. The issue involved is no more res-integra in view of the decision of this Court (Bengaluru Bench) in MFA No.2526/2018 connected with another case, between The Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Ltd., vs. Melappa S/o.Hatti Thimmappa, decided on 22.07.2022. The defence available to the insurance company as per sub-section (2) of section 149 of M.V.Act is that when the vehicle is used for other than the purpose not allowed by permit, then the insurance company is absolved. Here for what purpose the permit is given to auto rickshaw, for the same purpose the auto rickshaw is used. The only deviation is, the auto rickshaw has plied other than the route permitted, but this is not deviation of purpos
