Insurance liability is conditioned upon the insured's compliance with policy conditions, including holding a valid driving license.

ORDER This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2024 passed in M.A.C.A. No.1179/2018.

2. The review petitioner is the second respondent in M.A.C.A.

No.1179/2018, which was filed seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded in O.P.(MV) No.577/2014 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda. The said original petition was filed seeking compensation for the injuries sustained by the petitioner in a motor accident that occurred on 31.03.2014. The Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal disposed of the said original petition by awarding a compensation of Rs.7,56,100/- with 8% interest and proportionate costs.

3. By judgment dated 13.11.2024 in M.A.C.A. No.1179/2018, this Court enhanced the compensation by a further sum of ₹2,13,600/- with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum on the enhanced amount from 20.06.2014 till the date of realisation, and directed the second respondent insurance company to deposit the said amount before the Tribunal within a period of three months.

4. The respondent insurance company has filed the present review petition contending that, while passing the impugned judgment, this Court failed to take note of the fact that the first respondent was riding the offending motorcycle without a valid driving licence, which constitutes a clear violation of the policy conditions. It is contended that once such a violation was established, the insurance company ought to have been permitted to recover the compensation paid from the first respondent, the owner of the offending motorcycle.

5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the impugned judgment as well as the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal.

6. On a perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it is evident that the Tribunal had recorded a finding that the first respondent, who was the owner-cum-rider of the offending motorcycle, was riding it at the time of the accident without a valid driving licence, thereby committing a breach of the policy conditions. While the Tribunal directed the insurer to satisfy the award, it expressly permitted the insurance company to recover the amount paid as compensation from the first respondent, in view of the established violation of policy conditions.

7. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the review petitioner, while disposing of the appeal, this Court failed to take note of the said finding of the Tribunal regarding violation of policy conditions and, consequently, omitted to grant recovery rights to the insurance company. More pertinently, the first respondent has not preferred any appeal challenging the finding of the Tribunal regarding breach of policy conditions. Likewise, even after service of notice in the appeal, the first respondent did not appear before this Court.

8. In these circumstances, the failure to permit the second respondent insurance company to recover the amount of compensation from the first respondent constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting interference by way of review.

9. Resultantly, this review petition is allowed to the limited extent of permitting the second respondent insurance company to recover the amount of enhanced compensation payable in compliance with the judgment of this Court dated 13.11.2024 in M.A.C.A. No.1179/2018 from the first respondent in the said appeal, after effecting payment.

The order passed in this review petition shall be read in conjunction with the judgment dated 13.11.2024 in M.A.C.A. No.1179/2018.

Sd/-