The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability of the Insurance Company in case of policy condition violations and the burden of proof on the Insurance Company to establish the breach of policy conditions to avoid liability.

1. The Claimant is before this Court challenging the award granting a sum of Rs.10,000/- as compensation.

2. The case of the claimant before the Tribunal was that on 17.02.1998 when he was riding bicycle in 100 feet Road at Koyambedu to reach his office, the van bearing Registration No.T.A.I.2482 and insured with the second respondent, driven in a rash and negligent manner came and dashed against the claimant, as a result of which he sustained serious injuries. For the injuries sustained, the petitioner filed a claim petition claiming Rs.1,00,000/- as compensation.

3. The said petition was resisted by the second respondent Insurance Company stating that the driver of the van did not have valid driving Licence at the time of accident and therefore the Insurance Company was not liable to pay any amount for violation of conditions of the Insurance Policy.

4. On appreciation of pleadings and records the Tribunal found that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the van by its driver and fixed the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

Secondly the Tribunal found that there was no valid and effective driving licence to drive the goods vehicle and therefore directed the first respondent, the owner of the van to pay the said amount.

5. Mr.C.A.Diwakar, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal rightly found that the accident occurred due to rash driving of the first respondents vehicle by its driver. However the claimant is aggrieved by the finding of the Tribunal that the injury caused to the claimant was only minor and the claimant did not suffer severe injury, fracture of bones and for non consideration of Ex.A4 and the consequently awarding a sum of Rs.10,000/- alone as compensation.

6. A perusal of thepleadings and evidence available would go to show that the claimants sustained head injuries following which he was going to work. In Ex.P1 FIR it has been mentioned as follows:

" TAMIL "

PW1s evidence also corroborate the statement in the FIR, the tribunal relies upon evidence of PW1 as follows:

" TAMIL "

7. The aforesaid PW1s evidence was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal rightly held that the accident occurred only because of the negligent driving of the van driver. In any event, there is no appeal by the Insurance Company in this regard and therefore it has reached finality and the finding that the accident occurred due to rash and negligence driving the Van driver, is confirmed.

8. As far as the injuries are concerned, the claimant filed discharge summary Ex.A2 wherein it is mentioned that the claimant suffered frontal extra cerebral, haematoma and there was bleeding through his ears. When there is bleeding through ears it should be due to the injury caused to the brain. Ex. A2 also discloses that CT Scan of the skull was done which is as follows:

"Frontal ICH + 30, + 40 close to Mdtri, Ventrides, Basal cister"

PW1 stated in his evidence that he was admitted in the Government Hospital, Madras and he was treated for fourteen days as in patient and he took treatment as outpatient for three months and thereafter he was continuing treatment in a private hospital. PW1 further stated that he could not go for work and he was unable to do work as he did before. PW2, Doctor who gave Exs.A4, disability certificate deposed that the claimant sustained injury in the head and the bleeding oozed through the ears at the time of accident. PW2 deposed as follows:

" TAMIL "

.9. Thesaid evidence of PW2 was not challenged in the cross examination. During the cross examination, there was a suggestion to the effect that there was no bone fracture and that the injury was a minor one. When Ex.A2 discharge summary and the evidence of PW2, doctor would go to establish that there was head injury and there was bleeding through the ears that should have been specifically contested in the cross examination; However, that was not done. Therefore, the said evidence is deemed to have been p