The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the 'pay and recovery' principle in motor accident cases, allowing the Insurance Company to recover from the insured after satisfying the award by paying to the claimants.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 against the decree and judgment dated the 20th of January 2017 in M.C.O.P.No.69 of 2010 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(Special District Court, Salem).)

1. The appeal filed by the Insurance Company being aggrieved by the award of the Tribunal, fixing the liability on the Insurance Company to pay the claimants a sum of Rs.2,80,000/- as compensation.

2. The facts of the case is that the claimants are the legal representatives and dependants of the deceased Marappan. On 14.06.2009 Marappan while riding TVS XL Super bearing Reg.No.TN-28-AZ-0579 along with his relative by name Saroja on pillion, was hit by a tractor bearing Reg.No.TN-28-AZ-6435 near Siva Kumar Thottam, Pudupatty to Vellakal Mariamman Kovil Road. The injured Marappan died on the spot due to extensive injury sustained in the accident. The pillion rider sustained minor injuries. Criminal case was registered against the driver of the tractor for his rash and negligent driving. Claiming compensation of Rs.6,00,000/- a claim petition was filed by his wife, daughter and grand children before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Salem.

3. The claim petition was contested by the Insurance Company on the ground that the accident occurred, when the two wheeler rider dashed the tractor towing a trailer load with sand. The tractor involved in the accident alone was insured under the respondent Insurance Company. The driver of the tractor had no valid driving licence. The trailer attached to tractor was neither regitered nor insured. Therefore, in view of policy condition violation and Motor Vehicles Act contravention, the Insurance Company is not responsible to pay compensation. The deceased had no income of his own. He was about 70 years old and depending on others. Therefore, the quantum of compensation claimed is exorbitant.

4. Before the Tribunal, on behalf of the claimants, two witnesses were examined. 15 exhibits were marked. On the side of the respondents, three witnesses were examined. 6 exhibits were marked.

5. The Tribunal, on considering the evidence, held that the accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the tractor. Based on the evidence given by PW-1 and PW-2, the age of the deceased was fixed as 70 years. The notional income of the deceased person was fixed as Rs.5,000/- per month and after deducting 1/4th for his personal expenses, the loss of income was fixed as Rs.2,25,000/- by applying multiplier method. Accepting Ex.R3 the letter given by Rasipuram RDO, the Tribunal observed that the owner-cum-driver of the tractor had no driving licence. However, since the tractor has been insured, the appellant/2nd respondent/appellant-Insurance Company are liable to indemnify the owner of the vehicle. Accepting the evidence of the eye witness(PW-2),who had deposed that the deceased Marappan died because the rear wheel of the tractor run over him, the Tribunal had not considered the defence of the Insurance Company that there is violation of Motor Vehicles Act.

6. In the appeal, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company contended that the Tribunal has overlooked the evidence of RW-2, who had affirmed that the owner-cum-driver of the tractor, which caused the accident, had not driving licence on the date of the accident. The evidence of the witnesses confirms the fact that the offending vehicle was a tractor attached with the trailer. The trailor, which had no registration and insurance, was seized by the Motor Vehicle Inspector and the same is reflected in Ex.X4. The Tribunal failed to note that when the accident had occurred by the vehicle not insured under the appellant, there is no responsibility to indemnify the owner, who has violated the Motor Vehicles Act and also the policy conditions. It was also contended that the accident was caused by the tractor with trailer and since the trailer was neither register