The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants despite the violation of policy conditions, and the compensation awarded can be modified based on the nature of injuries and legal principles.

R. Sudhakar, J.

The insurance company has filed this appeal challenging the award dated 30.3.2007 made in M.C.O.P. Nos. 124 and 125 of 2005 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Hosur.

2. The brief facts relating to the accident are as follows:

It is a case of injury. The accident in this case happened on 17.12.2003. The injured Sowkath Ali, claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 124 of 2005 and Imtiaz, the injured-claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2005 were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No. TMR 1083 from Hosur to Nallur. When the autorickshaw was nearing Sithanapalli, at a curve, the driver of the autorickshaw drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and lost control over the vehicle and it capsized. Due to the accident, the passengers Sowkath Ali and Imtiaz sustained grievous injuries. They were taken to the Government Hospital, Hosur, and thereafter, they were treated at Sanjay Gandhi Hospital at Bangalore.

3. The injured-claimant Sowkath Ali filed a claim in M.C.O.P. No. 124 of 2005 for compensation in a sum of Rs. 5,00,000 stating that his income was Rs. 6,000 per month. The other injured-claimant Imtiaz filed a claim in M.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2005 for compensation in a sum of Rs. 50,000 stating that his income was Rs. 6,000 per month.

4. In support of the claim, Sowkath Ali, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 124 of 2005 was examined as PW 1 and Imtiaz, the claimant in M.C.O.P. No. 125 of 2005 was examined as PW 2 and Dr. Gandhi was examined as PW 3. Exhs. P1 to P17 were marked. Exh. P1 is the copy of the first information report. Exh. P2 is the wound certificate given to Sowkath Ali. Exh. P3 is the copy of insurance policy relating to the autorickshaw. Exh. P4 is the copy of the Motor Vehicles Inspector's report. Exh. P5 is the medical notes in respect of Sowkath Ali. Exh. P6 is the driving licence of Sowkath Ali. Exh. P7 is the wound certificate of Imtiaz. Exh. P8 is the medical notes in respect of Imtiaz. Exh. P9 is the medical bills. Exh. P10 is the wound certificate issued by Sanjay Gandhi Hospital for Imtiaz. Exh. P1 1 is the medical notes of Imtiaz given by JIPMER Hospital. Exh. P12 is the disability certificate of Sowkath Ali. Exh. P13 is the X-ray. Exh. P14 is the X-ray bill. Exh. P15 is the disability certificate of Imtiaz. Exh. P16 is the X-ray of Imtiaz. Exh. P17 is the X-ray bill of Imtiaz. An officer in R.T.O. office was examined as RW 1 and an officer of the insurance company was examined as RW 2. Exh. Rl is the copy of Motor Vehicle Inspector's report.

5. Learned Counsel for the claimants stated that the injuries were caused to the claimants as a result of rash and negligent driving on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw insured with the appellant and supported the plea by oral and documentary evidence.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellant while accepting the plea with regard to the nature of the accident and the nature of negligence on the part of the driver of the autorickshaw, contended that though the vehicle in question had a valid insurance policy, the said vehicle however did not have valid fitness certificate so as to ply on the road on the date of the accident. The permit period expired and it was not renewed. Therefore, learned Counsel for the appellant insurance company pleaded that there is violation of the terms of the policy on the date of accident and consequently, their liability to compensate the claimant will not arise. The Tribunal did not accept the plea of the appellant and held that since the vehicle had a valid insurance policy and that the Motor Vehicle Inspector's report did not say anything about the mechanical defect in the vehicle involved in the accident on the date of the accident, held that the insurance company is liable to compensate the claimants.

7. In appeal, the learned Counsel for the appellant contended that since the vehicle in