JUDGMENT :

R.Subbiah, J.

The appeal is heard through video conferencing.

2. Challenging the quantum of compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Small Causes Court, Chennai, in MACTOP. No. 5552 of 2013 dated 03.10.2019, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

3. The respondents 1 to 4/claimants in this appeal are the wife, minor son and the parents of the deceased Baskar. On 12.07.2013 at about 08.30 hours, while the deceased V.Bhaskar was driving his motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN 03 K 8745 on K.H.Road from North to South, a Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 69 Z 1272, owned by the fifth respondent and insured with the appellant/Insurance Company, came in a rash and negligent manner, being driven by it is driver, in the same direction, and dashed against the motorcycle. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained fatal injuries and died on the spot. It is the further case of the claimants that at the time of the accident, the deceased was working as a skilled worker in S.P.Steel Company, Chennai and earning a sum of Rs.15,000/-. Due to the sudden demise of the deceased, the claimants lost their livelihood. Hence, the claimants have filed the claim petition claiming a sum of Rs.36,00,000/- as compensation for the death of the deceased.

4. Resisting the claim made by the respondents 1 to 4/claimants, the appellant/Insurance Company filed a counter statement inter alia contending that the accident had not occurred in the manner as projected by the claimants. They have also denied the age, avocation and income of the deceased. Thus, they sought for dismissal of the claim petition.

5. In order to prove the claim before the Tribunal, the first respondent/wife of the deceased, examined herself as PW1, besides examining, PW2, viz., Mr.S.Ramesh, an eyewitness to the accident and PW3, Ravikumar. The claimants have also marked Exs.P1 to P16 on their side. On the side of the Insurance Company, one Rema Devi was examined as RW1 and

Exs.R1 to R4 were marked.

6. The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the Lorry bearing Registration No.TN 69 Z 1272 and awarded a compensation of Rs.36,45,000/-. Further, the Tribunal observed that the material records are insufficient to come to the conclusion as to whether the driver of the said Lorry is possessing valid driving licence or not and directed the Insurance company to pay the above compensation indemnifying the owner of the vehicle and to recover it from the owner of the vehicle. The break-up details of the amounts awarded by the Tribunal under various heads are as follows:

7. Now, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that at the time of the accident, the driver of the Lorry did not possess a valid driving licence and there is a violation of the policy condition. He further submitted that the appellant/Insurance Company issued a notice, Ex.R2 to the driver as well as the owner of the said Lorry to produce the driving licence and the said notices were received by both of them and acknowledgment cards were marked as Exs.R3 & R4. However, they did not turn up to produce the driving licence of the said Lorry driver. Hence, adverse inference has to be made to the effect that at the time of the accident, the driver of the said Lorry did not possess valid licence. While so, the appellant Insurance Company ought not to have been mulcted with the liability to pay com