The main legal point established in the judgment is the insurance company's responsibility to make payment in a fatal accident case, despite policy violations, based on the interpretation of Section 149 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, and relevant case laws.

1. The Insurance Company is on Appeal challenging the award of the Tribunal, Particularly, its liability to pay the compensation to the Claimants in both the cases.

2. This is a case of fatal accident. The facts of the case are as follows:

On 05.08.2008, when the First Respondent in C.M.A.No.1372 of 2010 and the deceased Ayyanar concerned in C.M.A.No.1373 of 2010 were travelling in a two wheeler from Ayyarpalayam towards Vijayapuram, the vehicle belonging to the Second Respondent-School coming in the opposite direction dashed against the motor cycle, thereby caused severe injuries to the victims. The driver of the vehicle was prosecuted in Crime No.233 of 2008 on the file of Arumpavoor Police Station. Consequent on the injuries suffered, the injured Claimant contended that she is not able to carry on her business in the provisional stores, through which she was earning Rs.5,000/- per month. It is to be noted that the driver of the motor bike succumbed to the injuries. A Claim Petition was also made by the deceased dependants. The Second Respondent in the Claim Petition, the Appellant herein, contended driving of the motor cyclist and consequently, the liability cannot be fastened on the Insurance Company. That apart, the driver of the offending vehicle does not have the necessary licence to drive the vehicle like a School bus. Hence, the liability was sought to be disowned by the Insurance Company.

3. The Tribunal, considered the submissions made, particularly that of the compensation claimed by the Claimant taking note of the nature of injuries suffered as well as the manner of accident and Ex.P.5, the Wound Certificate. The Tribunal considered the evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.2 and Ex.P.1, the First Information Report and came to the conclusion that the driver of the school van is responsible for causing the accident.

4. The Tribunal, however, pointed out that the F.I.R. was lodged by one Dharman, who was present in the scene of occurrence. On behalf of the Respondents therein, R.W.1 appeared and deposed that the driver’s licence was filed before the Court and marked as Ex.R.2, which showed that the person had the licence to drive a two wheeler with gear and he did not have any endorsement to drive the vehicle including the goods vehicle. R.W.2 deposing on behalf of the Insurance Company reiterated the said fact and pointed out that the report of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, which is market as Ex.R.4, clearly showed the admission by the owner of the vehicle and the absence of endorsement in the licence to drive a heavy vehicle. In the circumstances, there being a policy violation, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation.

5. The Tribunal, however, rejected the plea of the Insurance Company and held that the weight of the vehicle was 3400 kgs. and in the circumstances, the Tribunal treated it as a light motor vehicle. However, since it was used for transporting children, the Insurance Company insisted that unless there is an endorsement in the licence of the driver, the question of fastening the liability as though the driver has the valid licence to drive the said vehicle does not arise. Before the Tribunal, the Respondents/Claimants placed reliance on the decisions reported in Ashok Gangadhar Maratha v. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., 1999 S.T.P.L. (L.E.) 26665 (SC); National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Annappa Irappa Nesaria and others, 2008 (1) TN MAC 200 (SC). The Tribunal considered the propositions and ultimately held that the vehicle was driven by one Kumar and the accident had occurred on account of the negligent driving of the said Kumar. Coming to the decision reported in 2008 (1) TN MAC 200, referred supra, the mere absence of endorsement by itself would not make a person driving that vehicle as one without a licence. In the circumstances, applying the law laid down in the said decision, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the Claimants are entitled to fasten the liability on the Insurance Com