Scope of identity.

S. Swamikkannu, J.

1. Appeal against order in O.P. No. 191 of 1980. This is an appeal preferred by the first-respondent V.S. Ramani against the award in O.P. No. 191 of 1980 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (5th Judge, Court of Small Causes), Madras, finding that the accident was the result of rash and negligent driving of the car by the first-respondent-appellant herein and passing an award for Rs. 11,800. So far as the contention of the second-respondent Insurance Company that the first-respondent V.S. Ramani, the owner of the car, who was driving the same at the time of the accident on 23.9.1979 had no driving licence and there is a violation of the condition of the policy and therefore the Insurance Company is not liable, it was held that the second-respondent Insurance Company is not liable. In the result an award for Rs. 11,800 with proportionate costs was passed in favour of the petitioner-first-respondent herein and against the first-respondent-appellant herein.

2. The case of the petitioner-first-respondent before the Tribunal, as mentioned in the petition under Section 110-A of the Motor Vehicles Act for compensation of Rs. 50,000 for the injuries sustained by him in a motor vehicle accident on 23.9.1979 at about 9:45 a.m. near Lakshmi theatre, Aminjikarai, on Poonamallee High Road, Madras is to the following effect:

The first respondent herein was riding a scooter PYP 4606 in Poonamallee High Road, keeping to the extreme left side of the road and was driving slowly. The car TMY 1659 driven by the first respondent in the same direction came from behind and knocked down the scooter and the petitioner was thrown out and sustained grievous injuries. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the car by the first-respondent appellant. The petitioner-first-respondent was treated in K.M.C. Hospital from 23.9.1979 to 30.10.1979 and was treated as out-patient till January, 1980 and he has also taken treatment under a private doctor. He sustained fracture of left femur and also dislocation of left arm and abrasion all over the body and he finds it difficult even now to walk. He is unable to lift weight and climb stairs and has pain while walking. The first-respondent-appellant as the driver and owner of the car and the second respondent herein as the Insurance Company are liable.

3. The contentions raised in the counter of the first-respondent appellant are as follows:

The claimant has to prove all the allegations. The various heads of claims have to be proved. There was no negligence or rashness on the part of the first respondent appellant. The first-respondent-appellant was in the traffic queue awaiting clearance in the pedestrian traffic cross held near Ambassador hotel and after the queue was cleared and the first respondent started the car and moved, a cyclist suddenly emerged from a near by lane and the scooter proceeding ahead stopped abruptly and therefore the car also had to stop and in this process the car hit the rear side of the scooter and this was an inevitable accident for which the first-respondent-appellant is not responsible. The accident was the result of the scooter rider suddenly stopping the vehicle. The first-respondent-appellant had a valid temporary licence to drive the car from 4.6.1979 to 3.9.1979 and the licence was renewed with effect from 4.10.1979. The first-respondent-appellant has not been disqualified from holding a licence and the first-respondent-appellant had held a valid licence earlier. In these circumstances, the insurance company is liable. The policy taken by the first-respondent-appellant with the second-respondent was in force during the time of accident.

4. The averments in the counter of the second-respondent are as follows:

All the allegations are denied. The accident was not due to rash driving of the car. The driver of the car was waiting for clearance at the pedestrian traffic clearance and the car started, the scooter which was proceeding ah