Recovery of the amount of compensation from the insured.

P.Sathasivam, J.

M/s.National Insurance Company Limited is the appellant.

2. For the death of one Kasi in a motor vehicle accident that took place on 18.3.1996, wife and children of the deceased have prayed for a compensation of Rs.6 lakhs before the Tribunal. The said petition was resisted by the Insurance Company- second respondent therein by filing counter statement. The Tribunal after holding that the accident was caused due to the negligence of the driver of a van TTA 5801 belonging to the first respondent therein, passed an award for Rs.5,83,700.00 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of petition till ¦the date of deposit. Against the said award, the Insurance Company has preferred the present appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as for the respondents 1 to 5.

4. The 6th respondent - owner of the Van though duly served notice from this Court, has not chosen to contest the appeal by engaging a counsel.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company mainly contended that, inasmuch as the driver of the van was not having valid driving license to drive any motor vehicle, the Tribunal committed an error in fastening the liability for payment of compensation as against the appellant Insurance Company. She also contended that the Insurance Company has discharged its burden by examining R.W.I toR.W.6 and also marking Exs.B-1 to B-8.

6. There is no dispute that the deceased Kasi died in a road accident that took place on 18.3.1996. P.W.2 who witnessed the occurrence explained the manner of accident. A complaint was made by one Shanmugavel. In the complaint, it is stated that due to the negligence of the driver of the van, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and he further deposed that on enquiry he came to know that it was Ravichandran, who drove the van. Certified copy of the First Information Report has been marked as Ex.A-1. Post martem certificate has been marked as Ex.A-2. and charge sheet as Ex.A-3. In the charge sheet - Ex.A-3, the name of the driver has been mentioned as Gunasekaran @ Ravichandran. The said Gunasekaran was convicted by the Judicial Magistrate No.l, Sivaganga, Ex.A-4 is the order of the criminal Court. The said Gunasekaran was charged under Sec.304-A of the Indian Penal Code and a fine of Rs. 1,50,000 was imposed. Motor Vehicle Inspectors report is Ex.B-1. Here again, the driver of the van has been described as Ravichandran, S/o. Palanisamy Servai. Ex.B-2 licence register shows that a licence has been issued in favour of Gunasekaran. Insurance policy of the van has been marked as Ex.B-3. The perusal of Ex.B-3 shows that there was a valid insurance for the said van from 17.3.1996 to 16.3.1997. The report of the Insurance Inspector has been marked as Ex.B-4, wherein the name of the driver of the van has been mentioned as Ravichandran, S/o. Palanisamy. there is also a reference to show that the said Ravichandran was not having any licence. Since it is the definite case of the appellant Insurance Company that the driver of the van was not having any licence, let us consider the evidence let in by them. First witness examined on the side of the Insurance Company is a Motor Vehicles Inspector. It was R.W.I, who prepared a report of the vehicle, wherein the name of the driver is mentioned as Ravichandran, S/o. Palanisamy. It is stated that at the time of inspection the driving licence of the driver has not been produced. He fairly stated that he cannot say who drove the vehicle at the relevant time.

7. An Assistant working in the Office of the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Sivaganga has been examined as R.W.2. He deposed that one Gunasekaran, S/o. Palanisamy was granted driving licence to drive LMV vehicles on 27.1.1995. An officer working in the Insurance Company has been examined as R.W.3. He admitted that the van TTA 5801 has duly been insured with their company. Copy of the insurance policy has been marked as Ex.B-3. An Inspector