IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established is the interpretation of the validity of a driving licence under the Motor Vehicles Act and the insufficiency of relying solely on scene mahazar for attributing contributory negligence.

JUDGMENT :

SHOBA ANNAMMA EAPEN, J.

1. The appellant is the claimant in OP (MV) No. 381 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Thrissur, a petition filed under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1998, claiming a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in a motor accident. The respondents herein were the respondents before the tribunal.

2. The case of the appellant/claimant is that on 28.08.2011 at 7.50 pm, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-08/AJ-9516 through the Vilakkumkal-Vadakke Karamuck public road, a motorcycle bearing Reg. No. KL-08/AL-1117 ridden by the second respondent and owned by the first respondent came in a rash and negligent manner and hit against the appellant causing him grievous injuries. Respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte. The third respondent insurer filed a written statement admitting the policy coverage for the offending vehicle, however, disputing the compensation claimed as excessive and exorbitant. It was contended that the second respondent was not having a valid driving licence and the police has already charge sheeted the second respondent for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(1) r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act (for short “the MV Act”). It was further contended that there was contributory negligence on the part of the appellant.

3. Before the tribunal, the evidence consisted of oral testimony of PW1, and documentary evidence of Exts.A1 to A11 on the side of the appellant/claimant. Exts.B1 to B4 were marked on the side of the respondent insurer. The tribunal, after analysing the pleadings and materials on record, held that the appellant is entitled to get Rs. 1,46,375/- as compensation under different heads. However, finding that the appellant was not having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident and the scene of occurrence is in the middle of the road as per Ext.A10 scene mahazar, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant, the tribunal directed that only 50% of the amount awarded, Rs. 73,188/- need be remitted by the respondent insurer. The respondent insurer was permitted to recover the amount so paid to the appellant from respondents 1 and 2 since there was violation of policy condition on account of the fact that the second respondent, who was the rider of the offending vehicle, was not having a valid driving licence. Challenging the finding of the tribunal, attributing contributory negligence on the part of the appellant and reducing 50% of the amount awarded, the appellant has come up in appeal.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant/claimant and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer.

5. The learned counsel for the appellant, pointing out to Annex.A8 attested copy of the driving licence, submitted that the appellant had obtained a driving licence on 10.06.1994 for 20 years, which was valid up to 09.06.2014, and since the accident occurred on 28.08.2011, he was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. The learned counsel referred to Section 14(2)(b) of the MV Act and submitted that as per the said provision, a driving licence is issued for 20 years for persons upto the age of 40 years. It was further pointed out that on a reading of Annex.A10 scene mahazar, it can be seen that the accident was not in the middle of the road, but on the left side. According to the learned counsel, the tribunal cannot attribute contributory negligence solely relying on the scene mahazar.

6. Per contra, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent insurer submitted that Annex.A8 driving licence produced by the appellant does not show that he was having a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It was further submitted that the scene mahazar also very clearly shows that the accident was in the middle of the road and not on the left side. Hence, according to the learned Standing Counsel, th