RAJENDRAN M R Vs. LAILA RAMAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT is the 4th respondent in OP (MV) No. 1528 of 1996. The said petition was a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act by the wife and children of one deceased Ramakrishnan: According to the claimants, late Ramakrishnan while walking on the side of the Thrissur-Palakkad NH Road was knocked down by a tempo which is driven by the 2nd respondent in the petition. He succumbed to the injuries. The 3rd respondent Insurance Company which had issued the policy has raised a contention that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle. Consequently, the appellant came to be impleaded as the 4th respondent. It is noted in the award that he remained ex parte. Finding that there was negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent driver, the Tribunal proceeded to compute the compensation as Rs.1,96,000/- and it was ordered that the amount shall be paid with interest at 12% by the 3rd respondent Insurance Company which was given liberty to recover the amount from the appellant. It is being aggrieved by this award that this appeal is filed.

(2.) WE heard Sri. V. V. Surendran, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. Rajan P. Kaliyath learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Insurance Company. Learned counsel for the appellant would contend as follows? The Tribunal erred in permitting the Insurance Company to recover the amount from the appellant. He would submit that though made a party to the proceedings he was made ex parte. He had no notice in the original proceedings. He also did not have notice in the execution proceedings. He came to know about the award when revenue recovery steps were taken apparently at the instance of the 3rd respondent Insurance Company which had paid the amount in terms of the award. The Tribunal found that though there is a valid insurance policy there is violation of the terms of the policy insofar as on the date of accident took place namely, on 22/05/1996, the second respondent driver was not possessed of a valid licence. It was found that the licence was valid from 10/03/1993 to 22/03/1996, and thereafter, it was renewed only on 22/11 /1996. Thus, as on the date of the accident there was no valid licence. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the finding and direction of the Tribunal are unsustainable for the reason that while it may be true that on 22/05/1996 the date on which the accident took place there was no licence it was renewed on 22/11/1996. He would contend that the Tribunal has to find it if it is the fundamental cause which contributed to the accident. He placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)1 wherein the Apex Court inter alia held as follows:

(3.) STILL later another Bench of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Vidhyadhar Mahariwala and Others, IV 2008 ACC 714 (SC)4 has proceeded to take the same view. Therein the accident took place on 11/06/2004. Driver's licence was initially valid from 15/12/1997 to 14/12/2000 and thereafter from 29/12/2000 to 14/12/2003. It was again renewed from 16/05/ 2005 to 15/05/2008. The Court took the view that the Insurance Company would not be liable. Thus, the Apex Court after referring to National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Swaran Singh, 2004 (1) KLT 781 (SC)1 (supra) and other case law has taken the view that the Insurance Company cannot be held liable if the licence is not renewed within a period of 30 days from the date of its expiry. Though apparently when the appeal was filed the matter was governed by the judgment of this Court, in the light of the later decisions of the Apex Court we are of the view that there cannot be any merit in the contention of the appellant that the Insurance Company should not have been given liberty to recover the amount from the appellant. It is to be noted that this is a case where there is a finding that the accident occurred on account of the negligent driving of the vehicle by the 2nd respondent and it is not as if some other reasons like vis major or falling of tree which contributed to the accident. In the light of the above discussion we would think that there is no merit in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed.