A.GOPALAKRISHNAN Vs. RUMUGHAM, S/O.NARAYANA MUDALI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants are respondents 1 and 2 in O.P(M.V.).No. 644/2002 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad. They are the owner and driver of a power tiller, which was involved in a motor accident on 31.3.2000, in a public road causing injuries to the 1st respondent. The 1st respondent filed the O.P(M.V.). seeking compensation for the injuries suffered by him. The power tiller was insured with the 2nd respondent herein. The Tribunal entered a finding that the accident occurred because of the negligence of the 2nd appellant and awarded compensation of Rs. 56,781/- with interest and costs. But it was held that the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the 1st respondent since the 2nd respondent did not possess a valid driving licence to drive the power tiller on the date of the accident. But the 2nd respondent was directed to pay the compensation amount to the 1st respondent with liberty to recover the said amount from the appellants herein. The appellants are challenging that part of the award, whereby the insurance company has been absolved from liability to indemnify the appellants and was given liberty to recover the compensation amount paid by them to the 1st respondent, from the appellants herein.

(2.) THE contention of the appellants is that power tiller is not a vehicle in Section 10(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act and, therefore, no licence is required to drive a power tiller. In support of the said contention, the appellants rely on the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in Pattanakkad Panchayat v. Ponnappan, 2003 (3) KLT 997.

(3.) WE have considered the rival contentions in detail.