The owner of a vehicle cannot evade liability for accident compensation when allowing unauthorized use of the vehicle by an unlicensed rider, contravening insurance policy terms.

J U D G M E N T

Anil K.Narendran, J.

The appellant is the 2nd respondent in O.P.(MV) No.52 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, Muvattupuzha, an application filed by the 1st respondent herein under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident occurred on 05.02.2011.

2. Going by the averments in the claim petition, on the date of accident, the claimant (the 1st respondent herein) was riding a motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-44/1435. When the motor cycle reached the place of accident, another motor cycle bearing registration No.KL-44/A-861 owned by the appellant herein and ridden by the 2nd respondent herein, came in the opposite direction and hit the motor cycle in which the 1st respondent was the rider. As a result of the accident, the 1st respondent sustained serious injuries. Alleging that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of motor cycle No.KL-44/A-861 by the 2nd respondent, claim petition was filed before the Tribunal claiming compensation. The 3rd respondent herein is the insurer of motor cycle No.KL-44/A-861.

3. Before the Tribunal, the appellant filed written statement admitting the ownership of motor cycle No.KL-44/A-861. However, he contended that, at the time of accident the 2nd respondent Anu Martin was riding the said motor cycle without any authority or permission. On the date of accident, the appellant's son Nithin Varkey Jijo, who was a Plus-Two student, took the motor cycle to his school. It was the last working day for Plus-Two students and they were also having a farewell party at school. The appellant's son is holding Driving Licence No.44/3612/2010. Albin Jose, the brother of the 1st respondent Jobin P. Jose, was a classmate of the appellant's son. Albin Jose is also holding a valid driving licence to ride motor cycle. Albin Jose took the motor cycle with the permission of the appellant’s son for purchasing some items from Kothamangalam Town. Albin Jose, after collecting motor cycle No.KL-44/A-861 from the appellant's son, entrusted the same to the 2nd respondent Anu Martin, who did not have any valid driving licence. According to the appellant, Albin Jose entrusted the motor cycle to the 2nd respondent Anu Martin without the knowledge or permission from the appellant, who is the registered owner of the said motor cycle, or that of his son. The use of motor cycle by Anu Martin is a mischief, which he committed on account of the illegal act of Albin Jose in entrusting the motor cycle to him without the consent or knowledge of the appellant or his son. Therefore, the appellant cannot be called upon to pay the compensation claimed by the 1st respondent Jobin P. Jose. The appellant also contended that, the compensation claimed under various heads are too excessive and without any legal basis.

4. The 3rd respondent insurer filed written statement contending that, motor cycle bearing No.KL-44/A-861 was covered by an insurance policy, which was valid for the period from 18.01.2011 to 17.01.2012. The 3rd respondent contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the 2nd respondent Anu Martin, who was only a minor at the time of accident, who hold no valid driving licence to ride a motor cycle. As such, there is violation of Ext.B1 policy conditions by the appellant insured and the insurer is not liable to indemnify the insured. The 3rd respondent insurer has also pointed out that, as borne out from Ext.A5 final report, an offence punishable under Section 3 (1), read with Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act was also charged against the 2nd respondent Anu Martin for riding the motor cycle without any valid licence.

5. Before the Tribunal Exts.A1 to A11 were marked on the side of the claimant. The claimant was examined as PW1. On the side of the respondents, Exts.B1 to B4 were marked. The appellant herein was examined as RW1. The appellant's son Nithin Varkey Jijo and his class