LAWS(KER)-1997-10-43

STATE OF KERALA Vs. SUBAIDA BEEVI

Decided On October 16, 1997
STATE OF KERALA Appellant
V/S
SUBAIDA BEEVI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE State of Kerala and the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector who are the respondents in the claim petition have filed separate appeals. On July 12, 1985, at about 12.45 p.m., the lorry bearing registration No. KLQ 2519 was driven by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector for a test driving and in that course the lorry dashed against the deceased Muhammed Kunju Haneefa and he died consequent to the injuries. The legal representatives of the deceased filed a petition claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lakhs, The Tribunal after considering the matter awarded a compensation of Rs. 1,53,000 with interest at the rate of 12 per cent, per annum against the first and third respondents who are the appellants herein. The appeals are against this award.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned Government Pleader is that the vehicle was brought to the RTO's office for the benefit of the owner for issuing a certificate of fitness and, therefore, the owner should be held liable and that the vehicle having been insured with the tenth respondent herein, the insurance company is liable to indemnify the liability. The learned Government Pleader argued that the finding of the Tribunal that the vehicle was driven by the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector for the purpose of speed testing is erroneous. He further submitted that the compensation of Rs. 1,53,000 cannot be sustained.

(3.) FROM this provision, it is clear that before issuing a certificate of fitness which enables a vehicle owner to use the vehicle in a public place, the inspecting authority has to conduct a thorough inspection of all parts of the vehicle to satisfy the sound condition of the vehicle. Therefore, the said inspection and the driving of the vehicle for that purpose cannot be characterised as a speed test or test driving. As a matter of fact, Section 120 of the Act imposes a ban on test drive or speed test without the written permission of the State Government. In our view, the Tribunal went wrong in characterising the inspection of the Assistant Motor Vehicles Inspector as reliability trials.