C.VINAYAKUMAR Vs. LEELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Second respondent in O.P.(MV)No.1649/1997, 1676/1997, 1678/1997 and 1677/1997 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha is the appellant in these cases. The claimants in all these cases have filed the application for compensation for personal injury sustained by them in an accident occurred while they were travelling in the jeep with registration No.KLL/1076 driven by the first respondent, registered in the name of the second respondent and insured with the 3rd respondent. When the vehicle reached the place of occurrence, it capsized and the claimants in these cases sustained injuries and they filed the above applications for compensation on various heads. The first respondent entered appearance and filed counter stating that there was no negligence on his part and he is not liable to pay any compensation and he disputed the claims made by the claimants and prayed for dismissal of the applications. The second respondent filed statement with common contention that he had already sold the vehicle to the additional 4th respondent Sri.V.K.Balan, S/o.Karunakaran, Vattakallill House, Punnathala Desom, Koonathoor Amsom, Thrissur Taluk on 22.10.1993 and the first respondent is not his employee and as such he is not liable to pay any compensation. He had also contended that the vehicle was insured with the 3rd respondent and if at all any compensation is payable, they are liable to pay the amount. He had also disputed the other claims made by the claimants in all these cases and prayed for dismissal of the application.

(2.) The third respondent filed counter with common contention admitting the insurance of the vehicle with them, but contended that the first respondent who was driving the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding an effective and valid driving licence. He was not duly permitted to drive a transport vehicle. A mere license to drive the light motor vehicle will not enable the holder of the licence to drive a passenger carrying commercial vehicle, for which he requires a special authorization under the Motor Vehicles Act. Where a person was driving a passenger carrying commercial vehicle on such a mere licence, he is driving without having a valid and effective licence. The jeep was being driven in violation of the permit for carriage of goods. The claimants were travelling in the jeep in violation and in breach of permit and terms of conditions of policy and the vehicle was driven by the first respondent as permitted by the owner knowing that he had no valid driving licence and thereby he had committed breach of conditions of policy and as such they are not liable to indemnify the insured. They have further contended that, if or any reason, they are liable to pay the amount, then they may be given right of recovery from the insured. They also denied the allegation of negligence and also the quantum of compensation claimed. The 4th respondent remained absent and did not file any statement. Joint trial was allowed. PWs 1 to 3 were examined and Exts.A1 to A13 were marked on the side of the petitioners. Exts.B1 and B2 were marked on the side of the 3rd respondent and X1(a) and X1(b) were also marked on the side of the claimants. After considering the evidence on record, court below came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the jeep by the first respondent. The tribunal also found that there was no acceptable evidence adduced on the side of the 2nd respondent to prove that he had transfered the vehicle and he being the registered owner of the vehicle as on the date of the accident, he is liable to pay the compensation for the negligence of the first respondent. The tribunal also found that since the first respondent was not having badge to drive a transport vehicle found that the insurance company is liable to pay the amount, but liberty was given to them to recover the compensation awarded and deposited by them from the 2nd respondent, the insured. Others have not filed any appeal against the quantum of compensation awarded or the liability. The second respondent in all these cases have filed the above appeals challenging the finding of the court below, permitting the insurance company to recover the amount from him and also not accepting his contention that he was not the owner of the vehicle.

(3.) Heard the counsel for the appellants in all these cases, namely Sri.Ganesh, representing Sri.Elvin Peter P.J. counsel for the appellants, and Sri.Mathews Jacob, senior counsel appearing for the insurance company and Sri.K.V.Sabu, counsel appearing for the 4th respondent.