Back
2015 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43756
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, K.P.JYOTHINDRANATH, JJ
SURESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,MANJERI – Respondent
MACA/118/2007
SRI.T.K.KOSHY, SRI.RAJESH SIVARAMANKUTTY, SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.), SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW, SRI.JACOB SEBASTIAN
The interpretation of Section 66 of the Motor Vehicles Act confirms that lack of a transport permit does not bar personal use of a vehicle, affecting insurance liability accordingly.
Headnote:
Liability - Vehicle Insurance - Motor Vehicles Act Section 66 - The court examined the interpretation of the Motor Vehicles Act, particularly Section 66, regarding the use of vehicles without a permit and its implications for liability under insurance policies. The ruling emphasized the distinction between personal use and commercial use, influencing the decision to uphold the owner's liability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, the owner of an autorickshaw, was involved in an accident while driving a relative to the hospital. The Tribunal awarded compensation to the injured claimant, allowing the insurance company to recover amounts from the appellant based on the claim of a lack of permit for the vehicle.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the autorickshaw was not being used as a transport vehicle for hire at the time of the accident. The lack of a permit did not equate to a violation of policy conditions since the vehicle was used for personal purposes.
Issues: Whether the use of the autorickshaw without a valid permit constituted a violation of the insurance policy, affecting the liability of the insurance company for the accident.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that use of the vehicle without a permit does not automatically imply violation of insurance policy conditions if the vehicle was not being used for commercial purposes, thus protecting the owner's liability.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, vacating the Tribunal's order allowing the insurance company to recover compensation from the appellant.
JUDGMENT
Ramachandran Nair, J.
This appeal is filed by the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident, viz. an autorickshaw. He was driving the vehicle also. The second respondent herein is the injured claimant before the Tribunal and the Tribunal has awarded a total compensation of Rs.1,26,571/- with interest at 6%. The insurance company was directed to deposit the amount and the Tribunal further directed that the insurance company can recover the amount from the appellant herein. The said part of the award is under challenge in this appeal.
2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, Shri T.K. Koshy and learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company, Shri Mathews Jacob.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the finding by the Tribunal is that there was no permit for the vehicle as on the date MACA 118/2007 2 of accident and hence there is violation of the conditions of the policy. It is submitted that the said finding is not correct. It is highlighted that the accident occurred when the autorickshaw collided with a motor cycle driven by the second respondent. The case of the appellant is that the vehicle, viz. the autorickshaw was not being plied as a transport vehicle. The appellant had driven the autorickshaw for his own use and it was returning after taking one Shri Sivakumar who is the son of his mother's sister, to the hospital. The child was admitted in the hospital and the appellant was returning from the hospital. There was only one relative of the appellant, Shri Ramachandran, in the autorickshaw. It was not being used for any hire or reward and it was not plied for taking passengers. On these premises, it was contended that there was no violation of the conditions of the policy.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the insurance company Shri Mathews Jacob submitted that what is relevant to note is that there was no permit for plying the vehicle as a transport vehicle. Autorickshaw will come within the definition of a “transport vehicle”. Plying of the same without the permit amounts to violation of the conditions in the MACA 118/2007 3 policy. The explanation offered by the appellant, therefore, cannot be accepted.
5. Both sides relied upon various decisions of the Apex Court and this Court. In this context, we will refer to the pleadings of the parties. In the written statement filed by the appellant, he has stated that in the autorickshaw, the son of his mother's sister, Shri Sivakumar was taken to Thrissur Mission Hospital along with his uncle's son Shri Ramachandran. Therefore, the autorickshaw was being plied for own purposes. After admitting Shri Sivakumar in the hospital, they were returning and then the accident occurred. In the autorickshaw, only Shri Ramachandran, his uncle's son alone was sitting. It was not plied for any hire, but only for own purposes and therefore there is no violation of the permit.The appellant was examined before the Tribunal as R.W.1. He reiterated his stand in the written statement while being examined. According to him, since the autorickshaw was being plied for own purposes and only a relative was there in the autorickshaw, the insurer is liable. In cross examination, he has deposed that the vehicle was purchased 2-3 months back and since the permit was yet to be MACA 118/2007 4 obtained, it was plied only for own purposes. The application for permit was also pending and it was expected to be issued within one or two weeks of the accident. The person who was in the autorickshaw is the son of his uncle.
6. The Police records have been produced and marked in this case on the side of the claimant. Exts.A1 to A7 are the said documents. In the final report given by the Police, the offences alleged are under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. The second witness named in the Police charge is the said Ramachandran, the uncle's son of the appellant. It is clear from the charge-sheet itself that the appellant was carrying witness No.2 in the autorickshaw when the accident occurred. Therefore
