The absence of a driver's badge for light transport vehicles does not breach insurance policy conditions, thus maintaining the insurer's liability for claims.

JUDGMENT :

M.B. SNEHALATHA, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred by the insurance company/3^rd respondent in OP(MV) No. 841/2011 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’] on the ground that, since R1 in the O.P. who was the driver of the autorickshaw, had no badge to drive the autorickshaw, there was violation of policy conditions and therefore, the insurance company has got right of recovery of the award amount from the registered owner of the vehicle.

2. Claimants filed the O.P seeking compensation under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act in respect of the death of Bhargavi, who died in a motor vehicle accident on 01.06.2011.

3. According to the claimants, while Bhargavi was travelling in an autorickshaw bearing Reg.No.KL-8/G 6686 driven by the 1^st respondent in the O.P, the autorickshaw fell into a dip, and as a result of which, victim Bhargavi sustained fatal injuries and she succumbed to the injuries. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 1^st respondent.

R2 is the RC owner of the vehicle and R3 is the insurer.

Claimants sought compensation from R1 to R3.

4. Before the tribunal, respondents 1 and 2 in the O.P remained absent, and they were set ex parte.

5. The Insurance company filed written statement stating that though the autorickshaw involved in the accident had valid insurance coverage, 1^st respondent in the O.P, who was the driver of the said autorickshaw had no badge to drive the vehicle and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions and accordingly, the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the owner.

6. After trial, the learned Tribunal passed an award for Rs.1,55,000/- with 8% interest per annum and cost.

7. The sole contention raised by the learned counsel for the insurance company is that since the driver of the offending autorickshaw had no badge to drive the transport vehicle, there was violation of policy conditions and the insurance company should be granted the right to recover the award amount from the registered owner under the “pay and recovery” principle.

8. However, this issue is no longer res integra. In Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited, 2017 (4) KHC 648, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows:

“A transport vehicle and omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of either of which does not exceed 7500 kg. would be a light motor vehicle and also motor car or tractor or a road roller, 'unladen weight' of which does not exceed 7500 kg. and holder of a driving licence to drive class of "light motor vehicle" as provided in S.10(2)(d) is competent to drive a transport vehicle or omnibus, the gross vehicle weight of which does not exceed 7500 kg. or a motor car or tractor or road - roller, the "unladen weight" of which does not exceed 7500 kg. That is to say, no separate endorsement on the licence is required to drive a transport vehicle of light motor vehicle class as enumerated above.”

9. The Court clarified that if a driver is holding licence to drive light motor vehicle, he can drive transport vehicle of such class without any endorsement to that effect. Hence the requirement of a “badge” or “transport vehicle endorsement” is not a mandatory condition for driving a light transport vehicle like an autorickshaw. The absence of a badge, therefore, does not amount to a fundamental breach of policy conditions.

10. The correctness of the said judgment was subsequently referred to a Constitution Bench in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi, 2024 KHC OnLine 6607, which unanimously upheld the decision in Mukund Dewangan (supra). The Constitution Bench