The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the principle of 'Pay and Recover' in fastening the liability on the insurance company, despite the driver of the offending vehicle not possessing a valid driving licence.

JUDGMENT :

K. Somashekar, J.

Though this appeal is listed for admission, with the consent of learned counsel on both sides, the matter is taken up for final disposal.

2. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/claimant challenging the judgment and award dated 12.12.2014 rendered by the MACT, Bangalore in MVC No.4471/2013, whereby compensation of Rs.3,52,749/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation, has been awarded.

3. The factual matrix of the appeal is that on 14.09.2012 at about 4.30 p.m., the petitioner was proceeding in his motor cycle bearing Regn.No.TN-7-E- 9501 near Kuppur Village, Masthi Hobli, Malur Taluk, District Kolar. At that time, one motor cycle bearing Regn.No.KA-02-HM-9816 came with high speed in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the motor cycle ridden by the petitioner. As a result, petitioner fell down and sustained injuries. Immediately, he was taken to R.L.Jalappa Hospital, wherein he took treatment as an inpatient from 18.9.2012 to 17.10.2012 and spent a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical expenses. He was working as a Mason and earning income of Rs.10,000/- p.m. and due to the injuries inflicted on his person, he is not able earn the same. On all these grounds, he filed the claim petition before the Tribunal, seeking compensation.

4. On service of notice, first respondent being the owner of the offending vehicle filed written statement denying the petition averments. He contended that the alleged accident was caused by the negligence of petitioner himself. He was having DL at the time of accident and the vehicle is insured with respondent no.2 and hence, if any, liability on his part, it has to be indemnified by respondent no.2 being the insurer.

5. Though the second respondent insurer appeared, did not chose to file written statement. Based upon the pleadings of the parties, the Tribunal framed the issues for consideration. In order to substantiate his case, petitioner himself examined as PW.1 and got marked documents as per Exs.P1 to P11. He also examined the Doctor as PW.2 and through him got marked documents as per Exs.P13 to P15. On behalf of the respondents, RW.1 was examined and Exs.R1 to R8 were got marked. After hearing arguments of learned counsel for the parties and on evaluation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, the Tribunal passed the impugned judgment, awarding compensation of Rs.3,52,749/- with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of petition till realisation. Further, the liability was fastened on respondent no.1 being the owner of the offending vehicle. The claim petition against respondent no.2 - insurance company came to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal by the claimant seeking enhancement of the compensation and also on the question of liability.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Tribunal has erred in exonerating the second respondent insurance company of its liability on the ground that the offending motorcycle rider did not possess valid driving licence accepting the contents of the charge sheet relied upon by the insurer. Mentioning of the rider in the charge sheet that he did not possess driving licence is an opinion founded by the Investigating Officer on the basis of evidence said to have been collected during the course of investigation. All those materials were not before the Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence. He contends that the accusation made in the charge sheet against the persons is required to be proved in accordance with law. Mere filing of charge sheet is not a proof of the contents thereof. Hence, the finding of the Tribunal that the insurance company has proved its defence based on the contents of the charge sheet is perverse and the same is liable to be set aside and the liability has to be fastened on it.

7. He further contends that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal under different heads requires to be enhanced considering the na