The court established the principle that an Insurance Company is entitled to recover the compensation amount from the owner of the vehicle after paying the same to the claimants, and that replication of medical bills can lead to modification of the compensation amount.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the decree and judgment passed in MACT.O.P.No.1550 of 2015 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Court, Salem.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed to set aside the decree and judgment passed in MACT.O.P.No.1550 of 2015 dated 22.12.2017 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, 1st Additional District Court, Salem.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant herein. The appeal is filed questioning the liability as well as the quantum of compensation awarded by the claims tribunal.

3. The brief facts necessary for the consideration of the appeal are as follows:-

On 05.05.2015, when the deceased Mohanraj was walking on the left side of the Omalur to Dharmapuri Service Road, at that time a Hero Splendor Pro Motor Bike bearing Registration No.TN-30-BZ-7732 driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner came in the same direction and hit the deceased-Mohanraj. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and he was immediately rushed to the Omalur Government Hospital. Later, he was shifted to Nimans Hospital, Bangalore and was further treated at Neuro foundation Hospital, Salem. The deceased, later succumbed to injuries on 06.06.2015. The deceased was aged about 35 years at the time of accident and was working as a Handloom Pure Silk Designer and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. The claim petition was filed by the parents, wife and the children of the deceased claiming compensation of a sum of Rs.30,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent, the owner of the offending vehicle remained exparte.

5. The second respondent / Insurance Company filed a counter, denying all the averments made in the claim petition. It was specifically pleaded that the driver of the first respondent vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident and hence, the second respondent was not liable to pay the compensation. The second respondent further submitted that the income claimed and also the claims under the various heads were exorbitant and imaginary. On all these grounds, the second respondent prayed for the dismissal of the claim petition.

6. Before the Tribunal, P.W.1 to P.W.3 were examined and Exs.P1 to P18 were marked on the side of the claimants. On the side of the respondent / Insurance Company, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R1 to R7 were marked.

7. The claims tribunal, on assessment of entire evidence on record, allowed the claim petition and awarded a compensation of Rs.16,83,188/- along with 7.5% interest. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the claims tribunal, the second respondent / Insurance Company has filed this civil miscellaneous appeal.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant / Insurance Company raised two grounds at the time of arguments. Firstly, the counsel submitted that on the date of accident, the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving license and the same was proved by the Insurance Company by examining R.W.1, the official of the RTO Office and Ex.R1 was marked to show that driving license was issued to the driver much later to the date of the accident. In the absence of any contra evidence, it is clear that the driver did not possess valid license at the time of the accident. Therefore, the tribunal went wrong in not directing the appellant to pay and recover from the insurer / owner.

9. The learned counsel further submitted that as far as the compensation towards medical expenses was concerned, the tribunal failed to note that there was replication of the medical bills to the tune of Rs.22,310/- and therefore, the tribunal ought to have deducted a sum of Rs.22,310/-. The counsel therefore, submitted that the judgment of the tribunal had to be interfered by this Court.

10. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly conceded that on perusal of the