JOBY THOMAS Vs. ANNAMMA AUGUSTINE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award of the Claims Tribunal, Pala in OP(MV) No. 238/2007. The claimant, who sustained injuries in a road accident, has been awarded a compensation of Rs. 26,250/- and the amount is ordered to be paid by the Insurance Company with a further direction to get it recovered from Respondents 1 and 2 on satisfaction of the award. It is against that decision, Respondents 1 and 2 have come up in appeal challenging their liability.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants as well as the Insurance Company. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contends before me that in order to get exonerated from the liability or to get an order of reimbursement from the owner, there must be breach of the policy conditions and that must be also the defence available to the Insurance Company under Section 149 of the M.V. Act. The brief facts would reveal that the vehicle, Maruthi car, was temporarily registered for a period from 30th November, 2006 to 6th December, 2006. The accident took place on 17th January, 2007 on which date there was neither extension of the temporary registration nor any permanent registration of the vehicle. The vehicle was got registered on 18th January, 2007.

(3.) The contention raised by the Insurance Company is to the effect that since there was no registration for the vehicle, it amounts to breach of the policy conditions enumerated as item No. 6, i.e., reliability trial and it contended for getting reimbursement from the owner of the vehicle. The learned Counsel for the Appellants had invited my attention to Section 39 of the Motor Vehicles Act which deals with the provision for registration of the vehicles. Under that section, no person shall drive any motor vehicle without such a registration. When there is any default committed by the person, the law takes care of and under Section 192 of the M.V. Act, when there is contravention of Section 39, it is made punishable with fine of Rs. 5,000/- etc. So, the learned Counsel would contend that when there is non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of the M.V. Act, the Act itself takes care of it to realise the fine.