An insurance company cannot escape liability under a policy for a tourist taxi on the ground that the driver did not have an endorsement to drive a tourist taxi, if the policy does not require such an endorsement.

J. Kanakaraj, J.

1. The parents of the victim in a motor accident are the appellants before this Court. The appellants filed a claim petition M.O.P. No. 370 of 1982 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Chengalpattu, claiming a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- as compensation, arising out of the accident on 24.3.1982 resulting in the death of their son. The case of the appellants is that on 24.3.1982 at about 11 a.m. their son Ethiraj had parked an Ambassador car driven by him on the left hand side of the G.S.T. Road and was standing outside the car by keeping the right hand side door open. At that time, the Ambassador car bearing registration No. TMV 8481 coming in the opposite direction and driven rashly and negligently dashed against the deceased Ethiraj causing fatal injuries. The first respondent owner of the car TMV 8481 remained ex pane. The second respondent insurance company filed a counter statement contending, inter alia, that the driver of the tourist car TMV 8481 had no licence to drive a taxi vehicle and, therefore, the insurance company is not liable to pay any amount. The other particulars regarding the quantum of compensation were also generally denied.

2. PW 3 was examined as an eye-witness to the occurrence. He spoke to the facts as set out in the claim petition that the maroon colour Ambassador car bearing No. 6161 was standing on the left hand side of the road near the Pakkam Railway Station on G.S.T. Road. The car TMV 8481 coming in the opposite direction from Tindivanam to Madras was being driven at a high speed and in a rash and negligent manner. It hit the driver of the parked car 6161 who was standing outside the car with the door open. The respondents did not seriously dispute the fact that the accident was caused due (Sic.) of TMV 8481. In fact they did not elicit any useful information in the cross-examination of PW 1 nor did they examine any witness to the contrary. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly held that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the car TMV 8481.

3. However, the second respondent sought to escape liability on the ground that the car TMV 8481 was a tourist taxi and the driver did not have an endorsement permitting him to drive a tourist taxi. Therefore, under the insurance policy, the second respondent is absolved of liability. To prove the above facts, RW 2 was examined. RW 2 is an Assistant in the office of the Transport Authorities, Chepauk, Madras. He maintains the tourist taxi register. According to this witness, TMV 8481 was permitted to run as a tourist taxi from 13.9.1978 till 13.9.1983. It was also stated that the vehicle had been transferred to and in favour of the first respondent on 29.9.1981. He marked Exhs. B-1 to B-4 in support of the above contention. The Tribunal, therefore, rightly concluded that the car TMV 8481 was a tourist taxi on the date of the accident. To prove the fact that the driver of TMV 8481 had no endorsement the second respondent examined RW 3 who is the Motor Vehicles Assistant in Tiruvarur. He deposed that the driver of TMV 8481 had a licence only to drive light motor vehicles and he had no licence to drive a tourist taxi. The Insurance Claim Investigator was examined as the 4th witness. He deposed that he obtained the driving licence of the driver of the car TMV 8481 at the time of the accident and took a xerox copy of the same. The said xerox copy was marked as Exh. B-8. From these documents and the oral evidence of respondents' witness Nos. 2 to 4, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation because the driver of the insured did not have the necessary licence to drive a tourist taxi.

4. The Tribunal proceeded to find that the first respondent owner is liable. Regarding the quantum of compensation, the deceased Ethiraj was shown to have received a salary of Rs. 253/- per month at the time of the accident. He was aged about 25 years. The first appellant was aged