The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove fundamental breach of policy condition by the insured to avoid liability, and the entitlement of claimants for compensation for loss of future prospects.

JUDGMENT :

1. This claimants' appeal is directed against the award of the Mortor Accident Claims Tribunal, Arni, Tiruvannamalai District against the quantum and liability.

2. The points for consideration in this appeal are:-

“a) Whether the claimants are entitled for additional compensation under future prospects, for the death of a Mason died at the age of 42 years I n the road accident ?;

b) Whether, the Insurance Company is liable to pay the third party claimants when the Driver of the insured offending vehicle does not have a valid driving licence ? and

c) Whether pay and recovery principle to be applied when the Drivers of the offending vehicle and the affected vehicle do not possess licence to drive the motor vehicles ?”

3. On 09/10/2012, at about 9.00 am, Munusamy s/o Krishnan who was proceeding in his Bajaj Two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 25-Z-9712 and the first respondent Venkatesan who was coming from the opposite direction in his Hero Honda Two wheeler bearing registration No.TN 25-U-4243 dashed against each other at the Vandavasi to Arni Road, near Sakthi Nagar. Munusamy was thrown away from his vehicle. He was severely injured. He died on his way to Hospital at Chennai for better treatment, after providing first aid at Vellore, Government Hospital.

4. A criminal case against Venkatesan was registered by the Arni Taluk Police in Crime No.589/2012 under sections 279 and 337 IPC altered into section 304 A IPC for causing damage to the vehicle and death of Munusamy by his act of rash and negligence.

5. Claim petition filed by the wife, son and mother of the deceased seeking compensation from the offending vehicle owner - Venkatesan and its Insurer - United India Insurance Co. Ltd. A sum of Rs.20 lakhs was claimed as per the break up given under:-

6. The Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.9,40,000/-. It exonerated the second respondent Insurance Company on the ground that the insured has violated the terms and conditions of the Insurance policy that, the Driver of the offending vehicle who is the owner of the vehicle did not possess driving licence and it saves the second respondent Insurance Company from indemnifying the insured. The liability was fastened on the vehicle owner, the first respondent herein.

7. The appellants who are the claimants before the Tribunal aggrieved and had preferred this appeal on the ground that the income of the deceased should have been fixed at Rs.12,000/- pm and not Rs.6,000/- per month. The Tribunal ought to have considered the future prospects and given 30% additional compensation. The Tribunal instead of exonerating the second respondent Insurance Company which has received premium, for violation of insurance policy condition, it ought to have ordered the Insurance Company to pay and recover from the insured / the first respondent herein. In a third party claim, if they are to be denied, the benefit of the welfare legislation, which is intended to assure them that they will get compensation from the Insurance Company with which the vehicle stands insured in case of fault on the part of the vehicle owner or any person allowed to drive the vehicle, the very purpose of the scheme will be defeated.

8. To buttress his submission, the counsel for the appellants/claimants would submit that the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in National Insurance Co Ltd –vs- Swaran Singh (AIR 2004 SC 1531 ); Kasthuri –vs- Gopu ( 2014) 6 MLJ 532 and in National Insurance Co.Ltd., Vs. Pranay Sethi and others (2017 (2) TN MAC 609 (SC)).

9. The learned counsel for the second respondent Insuran