The main legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company is not liable to pay compensation if the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident did not possess a valid driving license.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011, made in M.C.O.P. No.1605 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.)

The matter is heard through "Video Conferencing".

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant-Insurance Company against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2011, made in M.C.O.P. No.1605 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri.

2. The appellant is the 2nd respondent in M.C.O.P. No.1605 of 2007, on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Krishnagiri. The 1st respondent/claimant filed the said claim petition, claiming a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- as compensation for the injuries sustained by him in the accident that took place on 01.05.2007.

3. According to the 1st respondent, on the date of accident, when he was traveling as Cleaner in a Lorry bearing Registration No.TMD-6933 belonging to the 2nd respondent in Anumantheertham Pavakkal road which was newly laid, containing jelly stones, the driver of the Lorry drove the same in a rash and negligent manner without minding the hazards of the newly laid road due to which Lorry got capsized and thus, the accident occurred. A water tank set up over the Lorry fell on the 1st respondent who was thrown out of the Lorry. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent. In the accident, the 1st respondent suffered multiple and grievous injuries. For the injuries suffered by him, the 1st respondent claimed compensation against the 2nd respondent and appellant, as owner and insurer of the offending vehicle.

4. The 2nd respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal.

5. The appellant-Insurance Company filed counter statement and denied all the averments made by the 1st respondent in the claim petition. According to the appellant, the accident occurred when the driver of the Lorry driving the vehicle cautiously, applied sudden brake and swerved the Lorry to avoid hitting a Cyclist who suddenly crossed the road. The 1st respondent, Cleaner of the Lorry who was sleeping, fell down from the vehicle and sustained injuries. The accident occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the Cyclist. At the time of accident, the driver of the Lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent did not possess valid driving license. For violation of policy conditions, the appellant is not liable to indemnify the 2nd respondent, owner of the vehicle. In any event, the 1st respondent has to prove his age, avocation and income, injuries suffered, disability sustained and treatment taken to claim compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, the 1st respondent examined himself as P.W.1, examined Doctor as P.W.2 and marked 8 documents as Exs.A1 to A8. The appellant examined the Junior Assistant of R.T.O., Krishnagiri as R.W.1 and and marked M.V.I. report and copy of driving license of the Lorry driver as Exs.B1 & B2.

7. The Tribunal considering the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence, held that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving by the driver of the Lorry belonging to the 2nd respondent and directed the appellant as insurer of the said vehicle to pay a sum of Rs.4,17,400/- as compensation to the 1st respondent.

8. Against the said award dated 28.07.2011, made in M.C.O.P. No.1605 of 2007, the appellant - Insurance Company has come out with the present appeal.

9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant-Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal erred in awarding huge amount of Rs.4,17,400/- as compensation, when the Lorry involved in the accident did not have fitness certificate and the driver of the Lorry did not possess valid Driving License at the time of accident. The driver of the Lorry had o