AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
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 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.