The petitioner, a driver by profession, is aggrieved by Exhibits P1 and P1(a) demand notices issued for recovery from the petitioner. Admittedly the said amounts are the liability imposed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Muvattupuzha [hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”] in O.P.(M.V.).No.2456 of 1997 filed by the additional 3rd respondent herein. 2. The petitioner was the driver of a mini lorry, which was involved in an accident due to the negligence of the petitioner; and the additional 3rd respondent suffered injuries in the said accident. The additional 3rd respondent, who was a passenger in the goods vehicle, approached the Tribunal for compensation, which was granted by an award dated 15.05.2001, passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal mulcted the liability on all the respondents in the claim petition and directed the insurer to deposit the amount.
WP(C).No.31506 of 2011 - 2 -
3. The Insurance Company, being aggrieved by the direction to deposit the amount, was before this Court in M.F.A.No.25 of 2002. It was contended in the appeal, that, though it was specifically pleaded in the written statement that the claimant was a gratuitous passenger and, therefore, not covered by the policy, the Tribunal had not adverted to the said contention. A Division Bench of this Court, by judgment dated 10.10.2007, found that though the vehicle was insured, the insurer could not be mulcted with the liability, since admittedly no passenger could have been taken in the goods vehicle as it would result in violation of the policy condition, as the Motor Vehicles Act, stood then. In such circumstance, the insurer was absolved from the liability; and the driver and the owner of the vehicle, the latter of whom is the additional 4th respondent, were mulcted with the liability. In such circumstance, the above writ petition is not maintainable and the same is dismissed, leaving the parties to suffer their respective costs.
vku/-
Sd/- K.Vinod Chandran Judge.
( true copy )