Under the Motor Vehicles Act, non-compliance with license conditions does not absolve insurers of third-party liability; pay and recovery principle applies to recover claims from vehicle owners.

JUDGMENT :

K. MANMADHA RAO, J.

1. This appeal is filed by the claimant for enhancement challenging the judgment and award dated 23.01.2015, passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Additional MACT, Harihar (‘the Tribunal’ for short) in MVC No.51/2011.

2. The appellant/respondents herein are the claimant/respondents before the Tribunal.

3. The brief facts of the case are as under:-

On 06.03.2010 at about 7:30 a.m., while the appellant/claimant was standing at the Vatlahalli Village bus stop to go to the Duggavathi cattle market along with his sheep, a Mazda lorry bearing registration No.KA-17-A-4086 arrived. His companion, Mylappa, boarded the lorry with his sheep, at that time, the claimant was standing beside the lorry on the road when respondent No.1 (driver of the offending vehicle), suddenly drove the lorry in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant, causing injuries to his left thigh, ankle and other parts of his body. Immediately after the accident, the claimant was taken to the Government Hospital, Harihar and thereafter to Basaveshwara Health Center, Davanagere, where he underwent treatment as an inpatient for about 22 days. He spent more than Rs.1,00,000/- towards medical and incidental expenses.

4. It was also pleaded that prior to occurrence of the accident, the claimant was hale and healthy, earning Rs.7,500/- per month through coolie work. Due to the accidental injuries, he suffered permanent disability and is unable to continue his work. The accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent driving of respondent No.1. The respondent No.2 is the owner of the offending vehicle and respondent No.3 is the insurer, therefore, all respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation.

5. The claimant had claimed compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-. However, the Tribunal awarded only Rs.1,51,100/- which is inadequate and on the lower side. Hence, being aggrieved by the judgment and the quantum of compensation as well as the finding on liability, the claimant has preferred this appeal seeking enhancement of the award.

6. After service of notice, the respondents No.1 and 2 denied rash and negligent driving and the claimant’s alleged injuries, asserting that respondent No.1 held a valid driving licence and the vehicle was duly insured. The respondent No.3 disputed the existence of a valid insurance policy and a proper licence endorsement at the time of the accident, alleged violation of policy conditions due to unauthorized passengers and denied negligence and the claimant’s claimed particulars and contended that it would be liable only upon proof of valid driving documents and permits. The respondent No.4 stated that he had sold the vehicle to respondent No.2 prior to the accident and that liability, if any, rested with the insured owner and insurer.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the compensation awarded is on lower side, particularly when the appellant sustained injuries resulting in 30% disability and was inpatient for the period of 22 days and incurred substantial expenses. The Tribunal also failed to award amounts towards future medical expenses despite medical evidence showing the need for regular follow-up treatment.

8. It is further submitted that the amounts awarded under medical expenses, nourishment, pain and suffering, and loss of income during the laid-up period are inadequate and require enhancement. The Tribunal has also wrongly shifted liability onto the owner of the vehicle, even though there was a valid insurance policy in force at the time of the accident, which was not disputed. The defence taken by the Insurance Company regarding driving licence a