Insurance policy conditions must be re-evaluated when new evidence demonstrates compliance with vehicle fitness requirements.

JUDGMENT

The present appeal is preferred against the award in OP(MV) No.

830 of 2015 of the MACT, Irinjalakuda. The appeal contests the finding that the liability to pay the compensation was fixed on the 3rd respondent, with a subsequent right to recover said amount from the appellant (the owner of tipper lorry Reg. No. KL-52A-8843) due to an alleged violation of policy conditions.

2. The facts of the case are as follows: While the 1st respondent was riding a motorcycle (Reg. No. KL-45K-2804) along the Potta- Irinjalakuda Public Road, a tipper lorry (Reg. No. KL-52A-8843) driven by the appellant approached from west-to-east direction, allegedly drove in a rash and negligent manner, hitting the motorcycle and causing the 1^st respondent to sustain injuries.

3. The appellant was both the driver and the owner of the vehicle, which was insured by the 3^rd respondent at the material time.

The 1st respondent sought a total compensation of Rs. 10 lakhs for the injuries sustained. While the appellant entered an appearance by filing a vakalath, no written statement was subsequently filed on his behalf. However, the 3^rd respondent filed a written statement admitting that the Tipper Lorry (Reg. No. KL-52A-8843) was covered by a valid insurance policy. Notwithstanding this admission, the 3rd respondent contended that the vehicle lacked a valid fitness certificate at the time of the accident. Furthermore, the 3^rd respondent denied any negligence on the part of the appellant and disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the petitioner under various heads.

4. The Tribunal framed the following questions;

1. Whether the accident happened as a result of rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent

2. Whether there is any violation of policy conditions

3. What is the quantum of compensation to be awarded in favour of the claimant

4. Reliefs and costs.

5. The Tribunal considered Exhibits A1 to A10, marked on behalf of the claimant (1st respondent), and Exhibit B1 marked on behalf of the respondents. Based on Exts. A1 and A3, and in the absence of any contrary evidence to disprove the commission of offenses under Sections 279 and 338 of the IPC, the Tribunal held that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the appellant. 6. Regarding the policy violation, the 3rd respondent filed a petition seeking a direction for the appellant to produce the Fitness Certificate. Despite the service of notice, the appellant failed to produce the same. Consequently, in light of the precedent in Amrit Paul Singh and Another v. TATA AIG General Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others [2018 (3) KHC 197] , the Tribunal held that the absence of a valid fitness certificate constituted a fundamental violation of the insurance policy conditions.

7. Upon examining the evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the

1^st respondent is entitled to a compensation of Rs.6,24,920/- under various heads, along with interest at 8% per annum from 15.07.2015 until realization. Regarding the liability, the 2^nd respondent (the erstwhile owner) was exonerated based on the deemed transfer of the certificate in favour of the appellant under Section 157 of the Motor Vehicles Act . The Tribunal held the appellant and the 3^rd respondent are jointly and severally liable to compensate the 1^st respondent, and the 3^rd respondent was directed to pay the compensation. However, due to the established violation of policy conditions (the lack of a fitness certificate), the 3^rd respondent was granted the right to recover the awarded amount from the appellant.

8. During the pendency of this appeal, the appellant produced Certificate No. R9/9468/2023/IJK, dated 06.11.2023, issued by the Joint RTO, Irinjalakuda. This documen