Liability of insurance company in case of motor accident.

RATNAM J.

K. S. NarasimhanThese appeals at the instance of Messrs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. have been preferred against the common award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Erode, in M. A. C. T. O. P. Nos. 61, 60 and 59 of 1982, respectively, under the following circumstances : On May 19, 1981, at about 8 a.m. on the Erode-Karur Road at a distance of about 15 km. from Erode, one Chellammal was walking along the road and two others, namely, Ganapathi Gounder and Palani Gounder, were proceeding on cycles. At that time, a tourist taxi, bearing registration No. MDG 3133, belonging to one Ramasami was driven rashly and negligently by its driver, Narayanan alias Narayanasami, and an accident took place in which Chellammal sustained grievous injuries and Ganapathi Gounder and Palani Gounder lost their lives. Chellammal (first respondent in C. M. A. No. 100 of 1984 claimed compensation in a sum of Rs. 30, 000. Likewise, the heirs of the deceased, Palani Gounder (respondents Nos. 1 and 2), in C. M. A. No. 99 of 1984 and Ganapathi Gounder (respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in C. M. A. No. 99 of 1984, prayed that compensation should be awarded to them also in an amount of Rs. 55, 000 and Rs. 1, 00, 000, respectively. In his counter, the driver of the vehicle contended that the car was driven carefully and at a reasonable speed and that as the cyclists suddenly crossed the road, the accident took place and that there was no negligence or rashness on his part. Besides, he also disputed the quantum of compensation claimed by the injured Chellammal and the heirs of the deceased persons. In the counter filed by the appellant-insurance company, it raised a plea that the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not hold a valid driving licence for driving a tourist taxi and that no liability could be saddled on it.Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants exhibits P-1 to P-9 were marked and PWs-1 to 3 were examined, while, on behalf of the appellant as well as the driver of the vehicle, exhibits R-1 to R-3 were filed and the driver gave evidence as RW-1. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the tourist taxi, bearing registration No. MDG-3133, was driven in a rash and negligent manner by its driver and that was responsible for the accident, that the insurance company cannot disown liability for the payment of the amount awarded as compensation on the ground that the driver of the vehicle did not hold a valid licence for driving a tourist taxi, as, on the day of the accident, the vehicle in question had not been used as a tourist taxi and that respondents Nos. 1 and 2 in C. M. As. Nos. 98 and 99 of 1984 and the first respondent in C. M. A. No. 100 of 1984 will be entitled to recover compensation of Rs. 30, 000, Rs. 12, 500 and Rs. 7, 500, respectively, from the appellant-insurance company. It is the correctness of this that is questioned by the insurance company in these appeals.

The principal contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that, on May 19, 1981, when the accident took place, the driver of the vehicle did not have a valid licence to drive a tourist taxi and, therefore, under section 96(2)(b)(ii) of the Motor Vehicles Act as well as under the terms and conditions of the policy, no liability could be fastened upon the appellant. Reliance in this connection was also placed upon the decisions in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sugantha Kunthalambal 1980 (2) MLJ 572 ; National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Mahadevayya [1981] TLNJ 170 and Anjana Devi v. Arumugham, 1983 AIR(Mad) 283 ; 1983 ACJ 625. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the owner of the vehicle submitted that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle in question was not being used as a tourist taxi for the purpose of transporting passengers and, under those circumstances, the vehicle should be regarded as only a light motor vehicle to drive which the driver had a valid licence and, there