M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. v. C. RAVEENDRAN

# **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **THURSDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 7TH AGRAHAYANA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L)** ## **PETITIONER:** **M/S UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGIONAL MANAGER, REGIONAL OFFICE, HOSPITAL ROAD, ERNAKULAM.** **BY ADVS.** **SRI.JOHN JOSEPH VETTIKAD SRI.C.JOSEPH JOHNY** ## **RESPONDENT:** ## **C.RAVEENDRAN** **SON OF CHOUNDAN CHETTIYAR, VALIYAVEETTIL HOUSE, 6/386, AUTHAM PALLY THERUVU, KUTHAMPILLY, THIRUVILLAMALA, THRISSUR DISTRICT - 680588** **R1 BY ADV. SRI.G.HARIHARAN R1 BY ADV. SRI.PRAVEEN.H.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 28.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 2 ## JUDGMENT This writ petition is filed by the insurer of a vehicle which met with an motor accident challenging Ext.P6 award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. It is submitted that the petitioner Company was the insurer in respect of a motor car bearing Registration No.KL-8Y-7474, which was covered by a valid insurance policy. The vehicle met with an accident on 27.12.2009. The owner of the vehicle claimed reimbursement of an amount of Rs.59,888/- being the amount expended for repairing the vehicle. The insurance company repudiated the claim for own damage under the policy on the ground that the driver of the vehicle was not holding an effective driving licence at the time of the accident. Ext.P1 complaint was preferred by the owner of the vehicle before the Permanent Lok Adalat. The claim was resisted by the petitioner Company filing Ext.P2 written statement. An additional written statement was also filed as Ext.P3 along with which a copy of the policy and a copy of the letter received from the Regional Transport Officer, Pollachi with regard to the validity of the licence of the driver WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 3 of the vehicle. 2. The specific contention was that the vehicle was driven by one Sri.Mohanan A at the time of the accident and that his driver's licence was valid only upto 30.06.2009. Since the accident had occurred on 27.12.2009 and since the drivers licence was renewed only after a gap of 9 months, it was contended that the driver was not duly licenced to drive the motor vehicle as on the date of accident and that as such a specific condition in the policy of insurance was violated by the owner of the vehicle. After the conciliation proceedings failed, the Permanent Lok Adalat proceeded to take evidence and to decide the issue. Ext.P6 is the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat. 3. It was found by the Permanent Lok Adalat that the accident occurred on 27.12.2009 and that the driver at the relevant time was Sri.A.Mohanan, whose driving licence expired on 30.06.2009. It was contended by the owner of the vehicle that the licence contained an endorsement to the effect that Sri.Mohanan was authorised to drive a WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 4 transport vehicle till 26.03.2010. The owner had raised a contention that so long as the driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle till 26.03.2010, he was competent to drive a private vehicle on 27.12.2009, though his licence to drive an non-transport vehicle expired on 30.06.2009. The Permanent Lok Adalat found that on a interpretation of Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicle Act and Rule 18(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules “it may be possible to say that the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle is coterminus with the period of license to drive a non-transport vehicle”. However, relying on a decision of the Apex Court cited by the owner of the vehicle reported in Premkumari and Ors. vs. Prahlad Dev and Ors (2008 (3) SCC 193), the Permanent Lok Adalat found that the owner of the vehicle being a layman could not be expected to interpret legal intricacies of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Rules. It was, therefore, found that it was not possible to say that the owner violated the policy conditions regarding the entrustment of the vehicle to a duly licensed person. On these findings, it was held that the repudiation of the policy WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 5 with respect of the claim for own damages was unjustified and the petitioner Company was directed to pay an amount of Rs.34,893/-, which was assessed as damages by the Company. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 5. It is submitted that the learned counsel for the petitioner that the decision which is relied upon by the Permanent Lok Adalat to find that the repudiation was not correct had no relevance in the factual situation available. It is submitted that the decision of the Apex Court was rendered in the background of the third party claim raised in a motor accident claim and that the finding was only to effect that the insurance company could not repudiate the claim where the owner had no means of verifying the authenticity of the driver's licence of a person, who claimed to be in possession of such a licence. It is submitted that, in the instant case, the question is with regard to the claim for own damages and that the decision rendered by the Apex WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 6 Court and this Court in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act have absolute no relevance. It is submitted that the specific case of the petitioner was that policy of the insurance contained a specific conditions that the vehicle shall be driven only by a duly licenced person and in view of the admitted position that the driver did not possess a driver's licence as duly renewed on the date of the accident, the repudiation of the contract of insurance was perfectly legal and valid. 6. A counter affidavit has been placed on record by the Power of Attorney holder of the respondent. It is contended that the driver was authorised to drive a transport vehicle till 26.03.2010 and since the accident occurred on 27.12.2009 during the validity of the period of the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle. The finding of the Permanent Lok Adalat that the insurance company could not have repudiated the contract of insurance was perfectly legal and valid. The learned counsel places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Jitendra Kumar vs. Oriental WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 7 Insurance Co. Ltd (2003 (3) KLT 213) to contend that where the driver of the vehicle had not contributed in any manner to the accident, the insurer cannot repudiate the claim for compensation. It was held that where the damages occurred due to mechanical defect and from an accidental fire, the driver of the vehicle would be in no way of the responsible for the damages that the vehicle suffered. The learned counsel would also places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Pepsu Road Transport Corporation vs. National Insurance Company to contend that even in cases of fake licence, repudiation would not be justified since the owner would not be in a position to verify the veracity of the licence claimed by the driver. A decision of the Full Bench of this Court in National Insurance Company Ltd vs. Jisha K.P and others (2015 (1) KHC 29) is also relied upon to contend that a mere technical violation like absence of a badge by driver of a transport vehicle is not sufficient to exonerate the insurance company from liability to pay compensation to the claimant. WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 8 7. I have considered the contentions advanced. As stated earlier, the issue arising in the instant case is with regard to the repudiation of a contract of insurance. Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act provides for the currency of licence to drive motor vehicles. A driving licence issued in respect of a non-transport vehicle would be effective initially for a period of 20 years. After a person attains age of 50 years, renewal would be effective for a period of 5 years from the date of issue or renewal. A driving licence to drive a transport vehicle could be effective for a period of 3 years subject to the conditions provided in the proviso. Rule 18(2) of the Central Motor Vehicles Rules provides as follows:- “18(2) Where the driving licence authorises the holder of such licence to dive a transport vehicle as well as any other vehicle, then the licensing authority shall, subject to the production of medical certificate, renew such licence for the appropriate period as specified in sub-section (2) of Section 14”. It is evident from a reading of Section 14(2) of the Motor Vehicles Act with Rule 18(2) that the authorisation to drive a transport vehicle which is endorsed on the driving licence WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) **==> picture [8 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** cannot survive the validity of the driving licence. The conclusion, therefore, would be that Sri.A.Mohanan, who was the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence as on the date of the accident, which was on 27.12.2009. His licence had expired on 30.06.2009 and was renewed only after 9 months thereafter. 8. The decisions relied on by the learned counsel for the respondent are decisions rendered in the background of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act. Section 149(2)(a) deals with coverage of third party risk in the case of motor accidents. Section 149 refers to duty of insurers to satisfy judgments and awards against persons insured in respect of third party risks. Section 149(2) provides that no sum shall be payable by an insurer under sub-section (1) in case a condition excluding driving by a named person or persons or by any person who is not duly licenced or by any person who has been disqualified for holding or obtaining a licence during the period of disqualification. The judgments referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent are WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) **==> picture [16 x 9] intentionally omitted <==** authority only on the point that the insurer cannot claim the protection of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) for satisfying awards with regard to 3[rd] party risks on the ground that the driver was not duly licenced in the specific circumstances stated in each of the judgments. The question in the instant case is with regard to the claim for own damages and repudiation of the policy by the insurer. In view of the fact that the insurer had taken up a specific case that the claim would not be met in a case where the vehicle was driven by a person, who was not duly licenced to drive the same, the finding by the Permanent Lok Adalat to the effect that the insurer could not have repudiated the claim is unsustainable and unsupported by any material. In the admitted factual situations in the instant case, that the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid driving licence on 27.12.2009, I am of the opinion that the finding that the Permanent Lok Adalat was perverse and unreasonable. The reliance placed on the decisions of the Apex Court rendered specifically in the context of Section 149(2)(a)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act was completely misconceived. Moreover, in the case which has been relied WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 11 on by the Permanent Lok Adalat that is Premkumari and Ors. vs. Prahlad Dev (supra), the decision was only to the effect that the insurer could not refuse to meet the award which has been passed at the instance of the claimant, who is a 3[rd] party. The insurer was permitted to recover the amount paid in pursuance to the award from the owner of the vehicle and the driver. In the above factual situations, I am of the opinion that the finding contained in Ext.P6 was illegal and unsustainable. The order is, therefore, set aside. This writ petition is ordered accordingly. **Sd/-** ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE Bng/06.12.19 WP(C).No.8119 OF 2013(L) 12 ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 THE TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH AS OP NO.179/2012.** **EXHIBIT P2 THE TRUE COPY OF THE WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 22-11-2012.** **EXHIBIT P3 THE TRUE COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN STATEMENT DATED 15-1-2013.** **EXHIBIT P4 THE TRUE COPY OF POLICY NO. 1006814/31/09/01/00003627 VALID FROM 12-10-2009 TO 11-10-2010.** **EXHIBIT P5 THE TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. 2835/B3/2010 DATED 15-11-2010 OF REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, POLLACHI.** **EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE AWARD DATED 19-2-2013 IN O.P.NO. 179/2012 OF THE PERMANENT LOK ADALATH, ERNAKULAM.**