The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Insurance Company's liability in a motor vehicle accident case is contingent upon the insured's compliance with policy conditions, as stipulated in the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

1. Challenging the award of Rs.1,17,000/- as well as the findings of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal ( I Additional. District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, exonerating the Insurance Company from the clutches of the liability, dated 26.9.1996 and made in M.C.O.P. No.782 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, the Claimants have approached this Court by way of this Appeal.

2. Thefacts which are absolutely necessary for the disposal of this Appeal are as under: That on 17.12.1993 at about 4.30 p.m. the deceased Asan Meeran was fatally knocked down by a lorry bearing registration No.TDA-4129 belonging to the First Respondent herein, when he was proceeding in a cycle in front of Saranya Sweet Stall on Madurai-Alagarkoil Road at Tallakumam, which was resulted in his death instantaneously on the spot. Hence, the Claimant being the wife, minor children and mother of the deceased had filed a Claim Petition in M.C.O.P. No.782 of 1994, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate), Madurai, claiming a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation.

3. The First Respondent being the owner of the lorry did not resist the claim. On the other hand, the 2nd Respondent Insurer had resisted the claim on the following grounds:

(a) The driver of the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 4129 was not having valid and effective driving licence of drive the heavy-goods vehicle at the material time.

(b) Having allowed an unqualified person to drive the heavy goods vehicle, without valid endorsement on the driving licence, the First Respondent being the owner of the vehicle, had violated the conditions of the Insurance Policy.

(c) The occurrence was taken place only on the negligent act of the deceased himself.

4. In order to establish their respective cases, the parties to the proceedings went for trial. Including the first Claimant, two witness were examined on behalf of the Claimants. During the course of their examination, Exs.A1 to A7 were marked. On the other hand, three witnesses were examined on the side of the Insurer and eight documents were marked on their part.

5. On evaluation of the evidences and other materials available on record, the Claims Tribunal had found that the driver of the First Respondent was not holding valid and effective driving licence to drive the heavy goods vehicle, which was involved in the occurrence at the materials time. It had also found that since the First Respondent being the owner of the vehicle, had violated the Policy condition, the 2nd Respondent being the Insurer of the offending vehicle cannot be held liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Ultimately, the Claims Tribunal had exonerated the Insurance Company from the clutches of the liability and directed the 1st Respondent, being the owner of the vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.1,17,000/- towards the compensation for the death of the deceased Asan Meeran. The award as well as the findings of the Claims Tribunal has been challenged in this Appeal by the Claimants.

6. In so far as, the present Appeal is concerned, the facts need not be reiterated once again and the scope for the disposal of the Appeal is also very limited, as it hinges around the liability of the Insurance Company. It is not disputed that the lorry bearing registration No.TDA 4129 was insured with the Second Respondent – Insurance Company at the relevant period. But Mr. A. Arumugam, the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant Insurance Company, has submitted that:

(a) the First Respondent being the owner of the vehicle should have verified as to whether the driver was having valid and effective licence to drive a particular type of vehicle.

(b) The coverage under the policy in respect of the offending vehicle is not at all disputed.

(c) Since the insurance of contract between the Respondents 1 and 2