ANIL K. SREENIVASAN Vs. OMANAKUTTAN ULAHAKALLUMKAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent had sustained injuries in a motor accident involving an autorickshaw driven by the second respondent, owned by the appellant and insured with the third respondent. He had filed a petition before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Pala, claiming compensation on account of the injuries sustained in the accident. The learned Tribunal, after considering the matter, found that the second respondent was responsible for the accident and awarded a total compensation of 45,780/- (Rupees forty five thousand seven hundred and eighty only) under various heads. The third respondent admitted the insurance cover for the autorickshaw involved in the accident. But, based on a contention raised by the third respondent, the Tribunal found that the second respondent was not holding an authorisation to drive a transport vehicle at the time of accident. Therefore, the amount found to be payable to the first respondent was directed to be paid by the third respondent and permitted them to recover the same from the appellant, who is the owner/insured of the vehicle, and the second respondent, the driver of the vehicle. Aggrieved by the permission so granted to the third respondent to recover the amount paid by them to the first respondent for the reason that the second respondent was not holding an authorisation to drive a transport vehicle, the appellant has preferred this appeal.

(2.) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the third respondent. In the review petition filed by the appellant for reviewing the order passed by this court in C.M.A No.2843 of 2013 and for reviewing the judgment in this appeal, notices were served on the respondents 1 and 2. But, they remained absent. In the nature of the judgment being passed in this appeal, no notice need be served on the respondents 1 and 2.

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the permission granted to the third respondent for recovering the amount paid to the first respondent, from the appellant and the second respondent is without any legal basis. The second respondent was holding a valid driving licence for driving the autorickshaw at the time of accident. Absence of an authorisation for driving a transport vehicle is no ground for avoiding liability by the third respondent under the Insurance Policy. Such a right is not available to them under Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short, the Act), he further submits.