The court holds that vehicle owners must adhere to insurance policy conditions, and may be liable for recovery upon failure to provide necessary documentation.

JUDGMENT

[MACA Nos.1520/2014, 1387/2014]

These appeals are filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle involved in the accident. Since these two appeals arise from the common award in O.P.(MV) Nos.697/2005 and 698/2005 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neyyattinkara, the appeals are heard together and are disposed of by this judgment. M.A.C.A.No.1387 of 2014 and M.A.C.A.No.1520 of 2014 is filed by the registered owner of the offending vehicle, challenging the tribunal award granting the insurance company the right to recover the award amount from the owner. The parties are hereinafter referred to as arrayed in the O.P.(MV).

2. The brief facts of the case is as follows: On 23.08.2003, at about 09.15 a.m., while the claimant in O.P.(MV) No.697/2005 was riding his motorcycle bearing registration No.KBV-7542 with his daughter, the claimant in O.P.(MV)

No.698/2005 as a pillion rider, along Puthenkada – Arumanoor public road, an ambassador car bearing registration No.KL-01- L-5112 driven by the second respondent in a rash and negligent manner hit on the frontage of the motorcycle and as a result, both the applicants sustained serious injuries. The claimants approached the tribunal claiming a total compensation of ₹50,000/- and ₹2,30,000/- respectively.

3. Though notice was served on the first and second respondents, who were the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle respectively, remained absent and were set ex parte before the tribunal. The third respondent – insurer filed a written statement, contending that the offending vehicle was not having a permit or certificate of fitness at the relevant time of accident. They further contended that the driver was not having a valid licence and that the badge was expired. Hence, there was violation of policy conditions and sought for exoneration of liability. Before the tribunal, Exts.A1 to A8 and Ext.B1 in O.P.(MV) No.697/2005 and Exts.A9 to A15 in O.P. (MV) No.698/2005 were marked. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, found that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the second respondent and awarded an amount of ₹21,640/- and ₹85,500/- respectively as compensation under different heads in both the original petitions with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of petition till realization. The third respondent – insurer is directed to recover the same amount from the first respondent/owner of the vehicle. Challenging the right of recovery granted by the tribunal to recover the amount from the owner of the offending vehicle the appellant/owner has filed the above appeals.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/owner and the learned Standing Counsel for the third respondent/insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant/owner submitted that the tribunal had directed the insurance company to pay the award amount and to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle bearing registration No.KL-01-L-5112, for the reason that there was violation of policy conditions, that the driver of the offending vehicle was not having a valid driving licence and badge to drive the vehicle and that there was no permit and fitness for the car at the time of accident. On a perusal of the award, it is seen that, though I.A.No.2158/2007 was filed by the insurer before the tribunal, directing the owner and driver to produce the relevant documents, they failed to produce the same before the tribunal. Consequently, the tribunal granted the insurer to pay the award amount and recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted