Negligence cannot be inferred solely based on the number of passengers violating policy conditions without establishing a causal connection to the accident.

1. The above appeals are carried from a common award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in O.P.(M.V).No.1717/2003 and O.P. (M.V).No.1719/2003. M.A.C.A.No.509/2009 is directed against the award in O.P.(M.V).No.1717/2003 and M.A.C.A.No.551/2009, against O.P.(M.V).No.1719/2003. Both these appeals are preferred by the registered owner and the defacto owner in the O.Ps above referred. The common ground of attack is that the Tribunal, having found the compensation amount payable to the claimants, have permitted the same to be recovered from the registered owner, defacto owner and the driver of the offending vehicle, a motor cycle, only for the reason that three persons were travelling in the motor vehicle.

2. Heard Sri.P.P.Jacob, learned counsel for the appellants in both the appeals, Sri.Rajan Kalliyath who appears for the contesting respondents / insurance company in M.A.C.A.No.509/2009 and Sri.P.G.Ganappan, learned counsel for the contesting respondents / insurance company in M.A.C.A.No.551/2009. Perused the records.

3. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that a violation per se of the Motor Vehicles Act , in the context of three persons travelling in a motor vehicle, will not automatically imply the breach of a policy condition. It may, at best, attract the penalty contemplated by the Stature for the violation of law. Therefore, the direction made by the Tribunal in the impugned award enabling recovery of the amount from the owners and the driver is illegal. Learned counsel relied upon the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in Mohammed Siddique and Another v. National Insurance Company Limited and Others ( 2020 (3) SCC 57 . Per contra, learned counsel for the contesting respondents submitted that, in as much as there is reference in the policy of the number of passengers being two, there is clear violation of the policy condition. A Division Bench decision of this Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ammini Amma ( 2013 (4) KLT 676 ), is also relied upon to point out that the existence of a chargesheet against the owner of the vehicle in permitting the vehicle to be driven without a valid driving license would establish the contumacious conduct on the part of the owner, amounting to breach of policy condition. Sri. Ganappan also pointed out that the very fact that three persons were travelling in the offending vehicle itself would establish that the same had contributed to the accident.

4. Having heard learned counsel appearing on both sides, this Court is not in a position to accept the contentions raised on behalf of the contesting respondents. This Court finds that the factual premise as occurring in this case is squarely in the teeth of the judgment of this Court in Mohammed Siddique (supra). In that case, the High Court found contributory negligence on the part of the claimant / injured, for the reason that as many as three persons were travelling in the motor cycle, which was hit by an offending vehicle, a car, from behind. The High Court found that the fact that a motor vehicle meant for only two persons to ride, carrying, besides the driver, two persons on the pillion would undoubtedly would add to the imbalance, a finding similar to the contention canvassed by the learned counsel, Sri.Ganappan, in the instant case. However, the Supreme Court frowned upon such finding of the High Court with the following observations:
"But the above reason, in our view, is flawed. The fact that the deceased was riding on a motor cycle along with the driver and another, may not, by itself, without anything more, make him guilty of contributory negligence. At the most, it would make him guilty of being a party t