Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Single Bench of Justice Johnson John set aside the direction issued by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (MACT), Ottappalam, which had permitted the insurance company to recover compensation from the owner and driver of an autorickshaw after disbursing it to the claimant. The Court held that an autorickshaw falls within the weight limit of a Light Motor Vehicle (LMV) and that no violation of policy conditions was established. In view of this, the appeal challenging the Tribunal’s direction was allowed, and the recovery right granted to the insurer was quashed.

The matter arose from an accident that occurred on 27 February 2011. The claim petitioner, having sustained injuries, filed a claim under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ottappalam. The petition was filed against the driver, the owner, and the insurer of the autorickshaw involved.

Also Read: What’s In A Name | Rajasthan High Court Says Mother Has Every Right To Be Named On Child’s Academic Record | Denial Of Identity Is Denial Of Personhood

The Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver. It also recorded that the driver held only an LMV licence and lacked a specific endorsement for transport vehicles. Based on this, the Tribunal allowed a “pay and recover” order—directing the insurer to pay the compensation to the injured claimant and later recover the same from the owner and driver.

The owner of the vehicle appealed the Tribunal's decision before the High Court, contending that the ruling was inconsistent with binding precedents. During the hearing, counsel for the appellant argued that as per the ruling in Mukund Dewangan v. Oriental Insurance Company Limited [(2017) 4 KHC 648 (SC)] and the Full Bench decision in Sjaji v. Pradeesh and others [2018 (2) KHC 342], a driver with an LMV licence is not required to obtain a separate endorsement to drive an autorickshaw. It was asserted that an autorickshaw, being a light motor vehicle under the Motor Vehicles Act, does not require any separate transport authorisation under Section 10(2)(e).

On the contrary, counsel for the insurance company referred to a 2018 decision of a Single Bench of the same High Court in MACA No. 2055 of 2011, arguing that under the Kerala Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, an autorickshaw falls under a specific category requiring separate authorisation.

In support of the appellant’s case, reliance was placed on the Constitution Bench decision in Bajaj Alliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rambha Devi [(2025) 3 SCC 95], which clarified the licensing requirements under the Motor Vehicles Act.

The Supreme Court, in Bajaj Alliance, examined key issues including whether a licence to drive LMV vehicles permits the operation of transport vehicles under 7500 kg, the interpretation of Section 3(1) vis-à-vis Section 2(21), and whether the 1994 amendment impacts these provisions. The Court ruled that drivers with an LMV licence under Section 10(2)(d) could legally operate transport vehicles within the 7500 kg threshold without additional endorsements.

The High Court was also called upon to examine the retrospective applicability of the Bajaj Alliance decision. The insurance company contended that the decision lacked retrospective effect. However, counsel for the appellant cited Kanishk Sinha and Another v. State of West Bengal and Another [2025 SCC OnLine SC 443], wherein the Supreme Court held that unless expressly stated, judicial decisions are retrospective in nature.

Justice Johnson John considered the binding effect of the Constitution Bench ruling and the scope of retrospective application. The Court stated: “A driver holding a licence for light motor vehicle (LMV) class, under Section 10(2)(d) for vehicles with a gross vehicle weight under 7500 kg, is permitted to operate a ‘transport vehicle’ without needing additional authorisation under Section 10(2)(e) of the MV Act specifically for the ‘transport vehicle’ class.”

It was further recorded: “The second part of Section 3(1), which emphasises the necessity of a specific requirement to drive a ‘transport vehicle’, does not supersede the definition of LMV provided in Section 2(21) of the MV Act.”

The Court acknowledged the Supreme Court's clarification: “The decision in Mukund Dewangan… is upheld but for reasons as explained… In the absence of any obtrusive omission, the decision is not per incuriam, even if certain provisions of the MV Act and the MV Rules were not considered in the said judgment.”

Regarding the classification of an autorickshaw, the judgment noted: “It cannot be held that a person holding an LMV licence would be disentitled to drive an auto rickshaw.”

The Court then addressed the insurance company’s argument on the prospective nature of the Constitution Bench ruling and referred to the judgment in Kanishk Sinha, quoting: “…The judgment of the Court will always be retrospective in nature unless the judgment itself specifically states that the judgment will operate prospectively.”

“…It is done not to unsettle something which has long been settled, as that would cause injustice to many.”

Accordingly, the Court concluded: “Since an ‘auto rickshaw’ falls within the weight limit of an LMV and the driver… 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.”

Also Read: Supreme Court: IAS Officers Can't Write ACRs Of Indian Forest Service Officers Up To APCCF Rank | Reporting Authority Must Be Immediate Superior Within Forest Department

Justice Johnson John allowed the appeal and set aside the Tribunal's finding as follows: “In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned award to the extent it permits the respondent insurance company to reimburse the award amount from the owner and driver of the vehicle is set aside.”

The Court thus nullified the directive that had granted recovery rights to the insurance company against the vehicle’s owner and driver.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Sri. P. Jayaram, Advocate; Sri. Sarath Chandran K.B., Advocate

For the Respondents: Sri. R. Sreehari, Advocate; Sri. C. Mohandas, Advocate; Sri. Unnikrishnan V. Alapatt, Advocate; Sri. Sachin Vyas, Advocate

Case Title: Sivasankaran v. Rejin & Others

Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:30103

Case Number: MACA No. 521 of 2019

Bench: Justice Johnson John

[Read/Download order]