DIVISIONAL MANAGER Vs. PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appeal by the insurance company under Section 173(1) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 [for short, the Act], to wriggle out of the joint liability in terms of the order and award dated 14-6-2010 passed in MVC No 544 of 2006, on the file of Addl. Civil Judge & AMACT, Ranebennur, on the most frivolous and cantankerous ground of the person who was driving the vehicle - an autocab - permitted to carry three passengers in addition to the driver, was not duly licenced to drive that vehicle, though such person did hold a valid licence to drive a "transport vehicle" as endorsed on the very licence. It is for making home this contention, Sri S K Kayakmath, learned counsel for the appellant, has very vehemently contended that the condition of the policy was that the driver driving the vehicle covered under the insurance should hold a valid licence; that a defence to the effect that the driver did not hold a valid licence is available to the insurance company even in terms of the provisions of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Act, reading as under:

(2.) While the first contention that the driver of the autorikshaw was not expressly licenced to drive a vehicle of the nature in terms of the licence appears to be so, on a cursory glance and to the eyes of a lay person, as the specific mention of the word either 'autorikshaw' or 'autocab' is conspicuously absent on the licence, the argument of Sri S K Kayakamath, learned counsel for the appellant, is that for this reason, though the person is authorized to drive a transport vehicle, is till not authorized drive an autorikshaw, is an argument that flatters only to deceive, if one were to give a second look or to understand and interpret the relevant statutory provision in a proper perspective and having regard to the purpose of legislation.

(3.) It is an argument without legal basis and stems out of a desperate attempt on the part of the insurance company to avoid or wriggle out of its liability in terms of the policy.