MACA Nos. 2121, 2125 and 2126 of 2009 (United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. S. Rhumathulla and Krishnan.K)

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court of Kerala
Hon'ble Judges: C. S. Dias
Judgment Date: 2021-09-13
Court Decision / Holding: Appeals allowed; by directing the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners and then recover the said compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle. Costs to be borne by the parties.
Final Disposition: Appeals allowed; insurer to pay and recover from owner; common award set aside to the extent of recovery rights,

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY

Respondents

S.I.RHUMATHULLA S/O SHEIK ISMAI, Kand al Main Road, Kand al, Finger P.O., Ooty, Nilgiri District
KRISHNAN.K S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, Finger P.O., Ooty, Nilgiri District

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• Sri Mathews Jacob (Sr.)
• Sri P.Jacob Mathew

Counsels for Respondents

• Sri Santheep Ankarath

Case Synopsis & Summary

These connected MACA appeals arise from a common Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Palakkad award, dated 06.03.2008, which held the United India Insurance Company liable to pay compensation to fourteen petitioners (injured and legal representatives of deceased) and directed recovery from the owner in most petitions. The insurer challenged on grounds that the driver of van TNN 3637 (VAN) did not hold a valid driving license on the date of the accident (15.05.2002), though license renewal occurred later on 21.10.2002. It was argued that under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the insurer is bound to pay the award and, where policy conditions have been infringed due to a driver lacking license, the insurer should have the right to recover the sum from the owner. The High Court noted that the law laid down by a larger bench in Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poulose (2015 (1) KLT 682) requires such recovery; it also observed the Tribunal's finding that non-renewal of a license is not a sole criterion to absolve the insurer of liability. The court allowed the insurer's appeals, directing payment to the petitioners and then recovery from the owner, with costs. It thus clarifies the liability framework where a driver without an effective license participates in a fatal/serious accident, enforcing the insurer's right to recover from the vehicle owner, consistent with Poulose.

Provisions of Law Cited

Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, Section 149(2)(a)(ii)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Poulose (Supra) doctrine on insurer's right to recover from owner
Non-renewal of driving license is not a criterion to absolve insurer of liability under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the MVA, 1988

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The insurer contends that since the second respondent had no valid driving license on the date of the accident, there is an infraction of policy conditions under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the insurer is entitled to pay the compensation amount but has the right to recover it from the vehicle owner, following the doctrine in Poulose and statutory provisions.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondents contend that the Tribunal's direction requiring the insurer to pay the compensation amount without recovery from the owner is justifiable; they rely on the common award and policy terms, arguing that liability should not be shifted away from the insurer; the argument emphasizes adherence to the Tribunal’s findings and existing legal interpretations of policy liability.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Poulose	2015 (1) KLT 682	Positive	Cited to support the insurer’s right to recover from the vehicle owner and to justify liability under Section 149(2)(a)(ii) when a driver lacks a valid license, influencing the appellate outcome.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** # **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943** **MACA NO. 2121 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.226/2003 DATED 06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA' , HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:** 1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA S/O SHEIK ISMAI, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. 2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2125/2009 AND 2126/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:2:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 2125 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.949/2002 DATED 06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:** 1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA, S/O SHEIK ISMAIL, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. 2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2121/2009 AND 2126/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:3:- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.S.DIAS** **MONDAY, THE 13[TH] DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2021 / 22ND BHADRA, 1943 MACA NO. 2126 OF 2009** **AGAINST THE COMMON AWARD IN OP(MV) NO.1246/2002 DATED 06.03.2008 OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL, PALAKKAD** ## **APPELLANT/3RD RESPONDENT:** UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD OOTTY NOW REPRESENTED BY ITS DEPUTY MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, `SHARANYA', HOSPITAL ROAD, KOCHI-11. BY ADVS. SRI.MATHEWS JACOB (SR.) SRI.P.JACOB MATHEW ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS 1 AND 2:** 1 S.I.RHUMATHULLA, S/O SHEIK ISMAIL, KANDAL MAIN ROAD, KANDAL, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. 2 KRISHNAN.K. S/O.KARIYAPPAN JAYA ILLAM, BUT FAIR, FINGER P.O., OOTTY, NILGIRI DISTRICT. BY ADV SRI.SANTHEEP ANKARATH **THIS MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.09.2021 ALONG WITH MACA NOS.2121/2009 AND 2125/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:4:- Dated this the 13[th] day of September, 2021 ## **COMMON JUDGMENT** As these appeals arise out the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Palakkad, they have been disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The appellant-insurer in these appeals was the 3[rd] respondent in O.P. (M.V.) Nos.226/2003, 949/2002, 1246/2002 and connected eleven claim petitions. O.P. (M.V) No.226/2003 was filed by an injured named Devu, O.P.(M.V.) No.949/2002 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Susheela and O.P. (M.V) No.1246/2002 was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased Santhi. 3. The common case of the petitioners in all the fourteen claim petitions filed before the Tribunal was that, on 15.05.2002, while the nine injured and five deceased were travelling in a van bearing registration No. TNN 3637(Van) from Kothagiri to Ooty, the van turned turtle and fell into a ditch 150 feet below the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:5:- the road. Nine passengers sustained injuries and five of them lost their lives. The accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the van by the 2[nd] respondent and owned by the 1[st] respondent in the appeal. 4. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and materials on record, allowed all the claim petitions by the impugned common award dated 06.03.2008, permitting the petitioners in the thirteen claim petitions to realise the compensation amount from the appellant/insurer and the petitioner in one claim petition to realise the compensation amount from the 1[st] respondent. 5. Aggrieved by the impugned common award, permitting the petitioners in the thirteen claim petitions to realise the compensation amount from the appellant/insurer, the insurer is in appeal. 6. Heard; Sri.Mathews Jacob, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant in the appeals and M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:6:- Sri.Sandeep Ankarath the learned counsel appearing for the 1[st] respondent in all the appeals. 7. The principle ground of challenge in the appeals is that, as the 2[nd] respondent - the driver of the van did not hold a valid driving license as on the date of accident, the appellant - insurer is entitled to pay and recover the compensation amount from the 1[st] respondent. It is contended that validity of the driving license of the 2[nd] respondent expired on 15.08.2000 and the accident occurred on 15.05.2002. The 2[nd] respondent had renewed his driving license only with effect from 21.10.2002. Therefore, the complete exoneration of respondents 1 and 2 is erroneous in view of Section 149 (2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and the law laid down by the larger bench of this court in **Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd. v. Poulose** [2015 (1) KLT 682]. Hence, the impugned award directing the appellant to pay the compensation, but not recover the amount from the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:7:- respondents 1 and 2 is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 8. The question that arises for consideration in the appeal is whether the impugned common award directing the appellant to pay the compensation without the right to recover the amount from the 1[st] respondent, the owner of the van, is justifiable or not? 9. The 2[nd] respondent driver had produced Exhibit B2 his driving license,which establishes that the validity of his license had expired on 5.8.2000. The accident occurred on 15.05.2002. The license was, thereafter, renewed only with effect from 21.10.2002. Hence, as on the date of the accident, admittedly, the 2[nd] respondent did not hold a valid driving license as per the mandate under the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. Thus, necessarily, there was a infraction of the insurance policy conditions falling within the purview of Section 149(2) (a) (ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988. The Tribunal ought to have directed the M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:8:- appellant to pay the compensation amount and granted it the right to recover the compensation amount from the 1[st] respondent in all the claim petitions following the statutory stipulation in the above quoted provisions and the law laid in **Poulose** (Supra). 10. The finding of the Tribunal that the nonrenewal of the license is not a criteria to absolve the insurer of its liability is erroneous and wrong and is liable to be set aside in the light of **Poulose** (supra). In the above stated factual and legal background, I am of the definite opinion that the impugned common award not granting the appellant the right to recover the compensation amount from the 1[st] respondent is erroneous and wrong and liable to be set aside. In the result,the appeals are allowed, by directing the appellant-insurer to pay the compensation amount to the petitioners in all the claim petitions and then recover the said compensation amount from the 1[st] M.A.C.A.Nos.2121, 2125 & 2126 of 2009 -:9:- respondent - owner of the vehicle. The parties shall bear their respective costs. Sd/- ## **C.S.DIAS,JUDGE** rmm