No Material to Show That Owner Checked Licence of Driver: Kerala HC Upholds MACT Order Directing Recovery Of Compensation Amount From Owner
The Kerala High Court upheld an order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal directing Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from the owner of the offending vehicle in absence of material to show that the owner either checked the driving licence or had taken a test of the driver employed by him.
The appellant-owner of the offending vehicle filed the appeals before the High Court challenging the direction in the common award of the Tribunal permitting the Insurance Company to recover the amount of compensation from him.
On a perusal of the facts of the case the Single-Judge Bench of Justice Johnson John said, “It is pertinent to note that the appellant has no case that the driver engaged by him was having a valid driving licence at the time of occurrence.”
Advocate Sonnymon K. Mathew represented the Appellant while Advocate C.V. Srinath represented the Respondent
The claim petitions, in this case, were filed by the legal heirs of the deceased Muhammed Shafeeq and Hanees Mubaraq, who died in a motor vehicle accident that occurred in the year 2016. At the time of occurrence, the deceased were travelling as rider and pillion rider in a motorcycle and a scorpio car driven by the first respondent from the opposite side in a rash and negligent manner caused to hit the motorcycle and thereby, the rider and pillion rider sustained fatal injuries. They subsequently succumbed to the injuries while undergoing treatment in the hospital.
The Tribunal found that the accident occurred because of negligence on the part of the first respondent. The Tribunal also found that the first respondent was not having a valid driving licence and therefore, there was a violation of policy conditions and hence, pay and recovery was ordered.
It was the case of the Appellants that the Tribunal ought to have found that the owner of the vehicle was not in a position to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and since the appellant engaged the driver on satisfaction that he was competent to drive the vehicle, it couldn’t be held that there was violation of any policy conditions.
The Counsel for the Insurance Company argued that in the absence of any pleadings before the Tribunal, the contention raised in the appeal before the High Court that the appellant, owner of the vehicle, had no means to verify the genuineness of the driving licence and that he engaged the driver on satisfaction that the said driver was competent to drive the vehicle, was not sustainable.
Reference was also made to the policy of insurance wherein a specific condition was mentioned that the person driving the vehicle should hold an effective driving licence. “Therefore, in the absence of any material to show that the appellant had either checked the driving licence or had taken a test of the driver in order to satisfy himself that the said person is competent to drive the vehicle, it cannot be held that the appellant has taken reasonable care before employing the driver”, the Bench held.
Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal that there was a breach of the terms of the, the Bench dismissed the Appeal.
Cause Title: C. Ibrahim Musliar v. K.P. Sainudheen & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:94525)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocate Sonnymon K. Mathew
Respondents: Advocates Srinath C.V., Lal K Joseph, K.Shibili Naha, A. Lowsy, Gayathri Rajagopal, Suresh Sukumar, Anzil Salim
