Insurers may seek recovery from owners for breaches like absence of a fitness certificate under the Motor Vehicles Act.

J U D G M E N T

This appeal has been filed by the third respondent/insurer in O.P.(MV) No.232/2011 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, (the Tribunal) aggrieved by the refusal of the Tribunal to grant the right of recovery from the owner/insured. The sole respondent herein, the first respondent in the petition, is the owner/insured of the offending vehicle. The claimant and the second respondent driver have not been made parties as no relief is claimed against them.

2. The original petition was filed by the claimant claiming an amount of ₹3,40,000/- as compensation alleging that he had sustained injuries due to the rash and negligent driving of the second respondent, driver of the autorickshaw bearing registration no.KL-46/A 2392. Before the Tribunal, the first respondent-owner/insured and the second respondent/driver remained ex-parte. The third respondent/insurer filed written statement admitting that the vehicle bearing registration no.KL- 46/A 2392 was having a valid insurance policy at the time of the incident. It was contended that neither the claimant/petitioner nor respondents 1 and 2 had intimated the insurer about the incident. The first respondent-owner/insured did not produce the documents relating to the vehicle for verification and hence there is violation of the policy conditions. It was also contended that the amount claimed as compensation was excessive and that the accident was not due to the negligence of the second respondent. On the other hand the accident was due to the negligence of the claimant/petitioner.

3. Before the Tribunal, no oral evidence was adduced by either side. Exts.A1 to A13 and Ext.B1 were marked on behalf of the claimant/petitioner and third respondent respectively.

4. The Tribunal on a consideration of the documentary evidence and after hearing both sides, found negligence on the part of the second respondent/driver of the offending vehicle resulting the incident and hence awarded an amount of ₹3,14,614/- along with interest from date of petition till realization along with proportionate costs. The contention of the third respondent/insurer that there was violation of the policy conditions was not accepted by the Tribunal and hence no right of recovery was granted to the third respondent/insurer. Aggrieved, the third respondent/insurer has come up in appeal.

5. The only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether there is any infirmity in the findings of the Tribunal calling for an interference by this Court.

6. Though notice was served on the respondent, he did not appear either in person or through counsel. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/insurer.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant/insurer relying on the dictum in Pareed Pillai v. Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. /b>.,2018 (4) KLJ 457 submitted that there is violation of policy condition as there was no fitness certificate for the offending vehicle and hence the Tribunal ought to have granted the right of recovery to the insurer from the insured-owner after satisfying the liability of the claimant/third party. Hence to the said extent, the Award is liable to be interfered with, goes the argument.

8. InPareed Pillai (Supra), it has been held by a Constitution Bench of this Court that no transport vehicle shall be deemed to be validly registered for the purpose of Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act , 1988 (the Act) unless it carries a 'Certificate of Fitness' as prescribed. By virtue o