Motor Vehicles Act | LMV Licence Holder Entitled To Drive Auto Rickshaw; Kerala High Court Retrospectively Applies SC Ruling

The judgment was pronounced by Justice Johnson John while considering a Motor Accidents Claims Appeal (MACA) preferred by the owner of the vehicle (auto rickshaw). The permission granted by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal to the insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner of the vehicle was challenged before the High Court.

The case against the appellant arose when the claim petitioner filed a petition under S. 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Tribunal against the driver, owner and insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident. The Tribunal passed an award, and allowed pay and recovery in favour of the insurance company. The permission was granted since there was negligence on the part of the driver of the vehicle since he possessed only a licence to drive a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV), and not a separate endorsement.

In appeal, the respondent Insurance Company argued that the ruling in Bajaj Alliance will not apply in the present case since there is no retrospective effect for the said ruling. However, the learned Single Judge held that it would, in the light of another recent Supreme Court judgment in Kanishk Sinha and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another. In this ruling, it was laid down that the judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that it operates only prospectively.

Referring to the Kanishk Sinha decision, the Court observed:

“It is well settled that the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court will always be retrospective in nature, unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively. Therefore, when it is not being specifically stated in the judgment of Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. (supra) that it will operate prospectively, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent insurance company is not legally sustainable. Since an 'auto rickshaw' falls within the weight limit of an LMV and the driver of the auto rickshaw involved in the accident was having licence to drive an LMV as on the date of the accident, it cannot be held that there is violation of policy conditions on the part of the owner of the vehicle and therefore, I find that that the appeal is to be allowed and the direction in the impugned award permitting the respondent insurance company to recover the award amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle after payment of the amount to the claim petitioner is liable to be set aside.”

The Court, therefore, allowed the appeal and set aside the specific part of the award that permitted the insurance company to recover the amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle.

Case No: MACA No. 521 of 2019

Case Title: Sivasankaran v. Rejin and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 288

Counsel for the Appellants: P. Jayaram, Sarath Chandran K.B.

Counsel for Respondents: R. Sreehari, C. Mohandas, Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, Sachin Vyas

Click to Read/Download Order