S. Manikumar, J.

Being aggrieved by the award, dated 12.9.2013, made in M.C.O.P. No. 3984 of 2011, on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Third Court of Small Causes), Chennai, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company has preferred this appeal. In the accident, which occurred on 16.8.2011, involving a Car, bearing Registration No. TN 52 X 0626, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, the respondent/claimant sustained a closed fracture of right shaft of humerus with DNVD, and other multiple injuries all over the body. A case in Cr. No. 323/TM1/2011, has been registered on the file of Thirumangalam Traffic Investigation Police Station, against the driver of the Car. After the accident, the respondent/claimant has been admitted in Soundarapandian Bone and Joint Hospital and treated as in-patient for 8 days, i.e., from 16.8.2011 to 22.8.2011. During the period of hospitalisation, open reduction and internal fixation and DCP platting through posterior approach has been done.

2. Before the Claims Tribunal, the respondent/claimant examined himself as PW. 1 and reiterated the manner of accident. To support his version, PW. 3, eye-witness, has been examined. To corroborate his testimony, Ex.P1 FIR, Ex.P2 Rough Sketch, Ex.P3 Accident Register, Ex.P4 Discharge Summary, Ex.P5 Medical Bills, Ex.P6 Estimation for future medical expenses, Ex.P7 Identity Card, Ex.P8 Salary Certificate, Ex.P9 Weight Lifting Certificate, Ex.P10 Driving licence, Ex.P11 X-Ray, Ex.P13 Authorisation Letter, Ex.P14 Loss of Pay Certificate and Ex.P15 Attendance Registrar. PW. 2, Doctor, who clinically examined the respondent/claimant, with reference to the medical records, has assessed the disability at 45% and issued Ex. P12 Disability Certificate.

3. Denying the negligence and the manner of accident, the appellant-Insurance Company has contended that the driver of the car, insured with them, was not negligent in causing the accident. They further contended that the driver of the car has been charged under Section 182 of the Motor Vehicles Act, for driving without a transport endorsement and therefore, put the respondent/claimant, to strict proof. Without prejudice to the above, they disputed the age, avocation and income of the respondent/claimant and the compensation claimed under various heads. On their behalf, Mr. Arunkumar, Legal Executive of the Company has been examined as RW. 1 and marked Ex. R1 Charge-sheet, Ex. P2 Driving Licence Register, Ex. P3 Insurance Policy and Ex. P4 Notice with an Acknowledgement Card.

4. On evaluation of pleadings and evidence, the Claims Tribunal held that the driver of the Car, bearing Registration No. TN 52 X 0626, owned by the 2nd respondent and insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, was negligent in causing the accident. As regards liability, finding that the 2nd respondent, owner of the Car, has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance Policy, by allowing the driver, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence and badge, to drive the car, insured with the appellant-Insurance Company, the Tribunal has ordered that the appellant-Insurance Company should initially pay the compensation amount to the respondent/claimant and then, to recover the same, from the owner of the Car, 2nd respondent, without initiating any separate proceedings. Considering the medical evidence adduced, the Claims Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,99,000 with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that when the owner of the vehicle has violated the policy condition, by allowing the driver, who did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, to drive the Car and, therefore, the appellant-Insurance Company ought to have been exonerated from payment of compensation to a third party victim. The said contention is no longer re