The appellants were the respondents 1 and 2 in O.P (MV)

No.1863/2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The respondents 1 to 4 in the appeal were the petitioners and the 5th respondent was the 3rd respondent before the Tribunal. The parties are, for the sake of convenience, referred to as per their status before the Tribunal.

2. The petitioners had filed the claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (in short, 'Act'), claiming compensation on account of the death of Motheen Rawther @ Afsi (deceased), the son of the 1st petitioner and brother of the petitioners 2 to 4. It was their case that, on 23.03.2016, while the deceased was riding his scooter bearing registration No.KL-34C 5924 through the Karinkallummoozhy- Erumely road, a van bearing registration No.KL-62A-684, driven by the 1st respondent in a negligent manner, hit the scooter of the deceased. The van was owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. The deceased was running a restaurant. The petitioners were the dependents of the deceased. Hence, they claimed a compensation of Rs.25,00,000/- from the respondents.

3. The respondents 1 and 2 did not file any written statement.

4. The 3rd respondent had filed a written statement, contending that the petitioners were not the dependents of the deceased. The 3rd respondent also disputed the age, income and occupation of the deceased. It was also stated that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the deceased.

5. The Tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, allowed the claim petition in part, by permitting the petitioners to recover from the 3rd respondent an amount of Rs.18,93,400/- with interest and cost. However, since the 2nd respondent did not produce the fitness certificate of the van, the Tribunal following the principles laid down by a larger Bench of this Court in Pareed Pillai vs. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. [2018 (5) KHC 1] permitted the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation amount and recover it from the respondents 1 and 2.

6. Aggrieved by the direction in the impugned award, permitting the 3rd respondent to recover the compensation amount from the respondents 1 and 2, the respondents 1 and 2 are in appeal.

7. Heard; Sri. A.K. Alex, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants/respondents 1 and 2 and Sri. P.K. Manojkumar, the learned counsel appearing for the 5th respondent-insurer. As the appeal is filed only with regard to right of recovery granted to the 5th respondent, service of notice on the respondents 1 to 4 was dispensed with.

8. The point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the direction in the impugned award, permitting 5th respondent/insurer to recover the compensation amount from the appellants/respondents 1 and 2, is sustainable in law or not?

9. The specific contention of the 3rd respondent was that the van did not have a fitness certificate as on the date of accident. Even though the respondents 1 and 2 had entered appearance, they did not file any written statement and contest the proceeding. They also did not produce the fitness certificate of the vehicle, despite there being a contention raised by the 3rd respondent and the Tribunal directing the production of the said document.

10. It was in the above circumstances, that the Tribunal following the ratio laid down in Pareed Pillai (supra), found that there was a fundamental breach of the insurance policy conditions. Accordingly, the Tribunal permitted the 3rd respondent to pay the compensation amount and recover it from the appellants/respondents 1 and 2.

11. The appellants have now produced Annexure-A1 certificate issued by the Sub Regional Transport Officer, Ranni which certifies that the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-62A- 0684 – the van in question - had a valid fitness certificate for the period from 04.12.2015 to 31.12.2016. Thus the appellants have proved that the van had a valid fitness certificate as on