JOY JOSEPH Vs. NEEMA JOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals are preferred against the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP (MV) Nos. 722/07, 723/07, 725/07, 726/07 & 727/07 and Writ Petition (C) No. 33455/07 as preferred against the award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha in OP (MV) 724/07. The owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is the appellant in all the appeals and the writ petitioner in the Writ Petition. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.16,605/- in OP (MV) No. 722/07, Rs.37,625/- in OP (MV) No. 723/07, Rs.7,340/- in OP (MV) No. 724/07, Rs.29,610/- in OP (MV) No. 725/07, Rs.9,785/- in OP (MV) No. 726/07 and Rs.8,920/- in OP (MV) 727/07. Totalling a sum of Rs.1,09,885/-.

(2.) THE Tribunal found that there is breach of policy conditions under two captions namely overloading of the vehicle and secondly the driver did not have a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. So far as the overloading of the vehicle is concerned, it is to be submitted that the jeep was insured to carry five passengers plus driver whereas six passengers and a driver was travelling in the vehicle and therefore it was held that there is breach of policy conditions. This position has been settled by the Apex Court in the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anjana Shyam and Others, 2007 AIR SCW 52371 the Supreme Court held that "the extent of liability of the Insurance Company in respect of the passengers of a stage carriage insured in terms of Section 147(1)(b)(ii) of the Act is limited only to the number of passengers authorised to be carried in the vehicle". In other words it is not a total exoneration of liability of the Insurance Company but the liability of the Insurance Company is limited to the number of passengers permitted to be carried under the permit. When there is overloading of passengers how it has to be calculated has also been considered by the Apex Court in para 16 of the said judgment. It was a case where a vehicle which had a permit to carry 42 passengers carried 90 passengers, the Apex Court held:

(3.) THE next question argued is regarding the driving licence. THE learned counsel for the appellant persuasively submit that there was valid driving licence or that the driving licence was renewed within the statutory period under the Motor Vehicles Act. If it is renewed within the statutory period then necessarily the Insurance Company would be bound to pay the amount. Further it is also to be considered whether there has been a breach of policy conditions as enumerated and contemplated in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh in 2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)2 in paragraph 102(iii) and (vi). THE Tribunal has only considered the question that it was the duty of the owner to have enquired about the driving licence and when he had not done it, it amounts to consciously giving the vehicle to a person who was not holding a valid licence. But at the same time it did not consider what is contemplated in para 102(iii) and (vi). So I think an opportunity can be given to the owner to establish whether there can be a liability on the Insurance Company. At any rate, if it is found that there was no valid driving licence and there was breach of policy conditions as enumerated in the decision cited above, the owner will be bound to reimburse the entire amount awarded to the Insurance Company. For that purpose, the matter is remitted back.