Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(KER) 13179
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
MARY JOSEPH, J
THE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO.LTD
– Appellant
Versus
REGHUNATHA KURUP – Respondent
MACA 564 2022
SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (SR.), SMT.LATHA SUSAN CHERIAN, SRI.GEORGE A.CHERIAN
Insurers have recovery rights against vehicle owners/drivers absent valid fitness certificates for the vehicle involved in an accident, influencing liability determinations.
Headnote:
Recovery - Motor Vehicle Accidents - Motor Vehicles Act - Sections related to fitness certification and insurer's recovery rights - The court held that insurers have the right to recover compensation from owners/drivers if they fail to prove valid fitness certificates for vehicles involved in accidents.
Fact of the Case:
The insurer challenged the Tribunal's award mandating it to compensate a victim of a motor accident despite the vehicle lacking a valid fitness certificate, arguing for recovery from the driver and owner.
Issues: Whether the insurer is entitled to recover compensation from the vehicle's owner and driver due to the absence of a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: An insurer is entitled to recover compensation from a vehicle's owner/driver if they fail to provide necessary documentation (like a fitness certificate), which is crucial for determining liability.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed, granting the insurer recovery rights for the compensation amount paid to the victim.
JUDGMENT
Dated this the 30th day of October, 2023 The award passed by Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pathanamthitta (for short ’the Tribunal’) in O.P (M.V) No.598/2016, is under challenge in the appeal on hand to the extent it failed to permit the appellant to have right of recovery of the compensation stood granted in favour of the petitioner for the reason that the offending vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate. As per the impugned award a sum of `1,77,040/- was awarded by the Tribunal in favour of the victim of the motor accident and the appellant was directed to pay the compensation awarded in favour of the petitioner and thus to indemnify the insured.
2. The appellant is the 3rd respondent/insurer of the offending vehicle before the Tribunal and respondents 1 and 2 are the driver and the owner of the said vehicle respectively. For the sake of clarity, the appellant will hereinafter be referred to as the 3rd respondent.
3. The 3rd respondent was directed to deposit the compensation arrived at, with interest accrued on it at the rate of 9% per annum from the date of filing of the Original Petition till the date of realisation alongwith proportionate costs, within 30 days from the date of passing of the award.
4. The 3rd respondent is aggrieved by the direction issued by the Tribunal to deposit the compensation and thus to indemnify the insured. The learned counsel for the 3rd respondent has canvassed in the appeal to grant it the permission to recover the compensation with interest and costs from the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle after depositing it in favour of the petitioner.
5. It was contended by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent that a specific contention was taken in the written statement filed by the 3rd respondent that the offending vehicle was not having a valid fitness certificate covering the date of the motor accident. To establish the contention, I.A No.5276/2018 was also filed seeking for a direction to the driver as well as the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the fitness certificate, if any, stood issued for the vehicle at the relevant time. The respondents in the Interlocutory Application were served with notice, but they failed to appear and produce the fitness certificate as directed. But, the Tribunal overlooked those aspects while passing the impugned award and accordingly the 3rd respondent was declined right of recovery of the compensation amount.
6. This Court has gone through the records of the Original Petition in question brought from the Tribunal and found in the scrutiny that direction was issued by the Tribunal in I.A.No.5276/2018 to the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle to produce the fitness certificate , if any, stood issued for the offending vehicle as on date of the motor accident in question. Steps were also taken by the
3rd respondent for issuing notice to the driver and the owner of the offending vehicle for compliance of the direction. Despite receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the driver and the owner failed to appear and produce the fitness certificate of the offending vehicle.
7. The above aspects were not discussed with in the impugned award. In a context where notice was served on the driver and the owner and when they failed to produce the fitness certificate as directed, adverse inference is liable to be drawn by the Tribunal against them that fitness certificate was not obtained for the vehicle and thereby to permit the insurer to recover the compensation amount alongwith interest and costs, after depositing it in favour of the petitioner in the Original Petition.
8. It is submitted by the learned counsel on behalf of the 3rd respondent that the entire compensation with interest and costs as directed in the impugned award has already been deposited by it.
In the result, the appeal is allowed to the extent of modifying the impugned award by issuing permission to the 3rd respondent to recover the compensation amount with in
