Kerala High Court
Second Opposite Party vs Appellant on 18 June, 2012
Author: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan
Bench: Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan, K.Vinod Chandran
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN
MONDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF JUNE 2012/28ND JYAISHTA 1934
MFA.No. 4 of 2006 ( )
------------------------------
WCC.34/2003 of COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN'S COMPENSATIN AND DEPUTY
LABOUR COMMISSIONER ,KOLLAM.
.........
APPELLANT(S):SECOND OPPOSITE PARTY
----------------------------------------------------------------
THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE CO. LTD.,
PUNALUR, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATIVE, OFFICER
REGIONAL OFFICE, ERNAKULAM NORTH, KOCHI-18.
BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE CHERIAN (THIRUVALLA)
RESPONDENT(S): APPELLANT
-------------------------
1. OMANA AMMA, KALAMPOTTIVILIYIL,
NJARACAUD, THALAVOOR P.O., KUNNICODE
(MOTHER OF THE DECEASED).
2. SANTHOSH KUMAR, (BROTHER OF THE
DECEASED) KALAMPOTTIVILIYIL, NJARACAUD
THALAVOOR P.O., KUNNICODE.
3. VIJAYALEKSHMI (MINOR),
KALAMPOTTIVILIYIL, NJARACAUD, THALAVOOR P.O.
KUNNICODE (SISTER OF THE DECEASED).
4. N.KRISHNAN POTTI, THEKKEKARA MADOM, THALAVOOR P.O.
BY ADV. SRI.PREMCHAND R.NAIR
BY ADV. SRI.B.MOHANLAL
THIS MISC. FIRST APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON
18-06-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
tss
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
&
K.VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
-----------------------------------
M.F.A.No.4 of 2006
------------------------------------
Dated this the 18th day of June, 2012
JUDGMENT
Thottathil B.Radhakrishnan,J.
This appeal is by the insurer. The insurance coverage was admitted. The only issue raised is whether the insurer could repudiate the liability on account of the fact that the driver of the autorikshaw had only a learner's licence. The driver of a transport vehicle should have a driving licence and the necessary authorisation to drive such vehicle. The learner's licence is no substitute for that. On facts, the autorikshaw went carrying six persons and had hit against a lorry. Under such circumstances, on merits, it cannot but be found that the insured owner of the vehicle had violated the terms of the policy in authorising a person not authorised by law to drive the autorikshaw. We may also recall that by separate judgment delivered today in MACA.1251/06, we have MFA.4/06 2 held the view that the driver was at fault. That appeal arose from the same incident.
In the result, this appeal is allowed vacating the direction to the appellant to pay compensation amount. Instead, it is directed that the first opposite party Sri.N.Krishnan Potti, who is the 4th respondent herein, shall pay the amount covered by the order of the Workmen's Compensation Commissioner and any recovery against him shall be in accordance with law. No costs.
Sd/-
THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN Judge.
Sd/-
K.VINOD CHANDRAN Judge.
kkb.19/6.