JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Additional District & Sessions Judge, Theni-Periyakulam in MCOP.No.44 of 2012 dated 31.01.2014.)

1. The present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging an award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Theni at Periyakulam in MCOP.No.44 of 2012.

2. According to the claimants, one Meenachiammal along with her son who is the 5th claimant were walking on the road, a motor cycle driven by the first respondent in a rash and negligent manner had dashed against the deceased Meenachiammal who succumbed to the injuries.

3. According to the claimants, the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent. An F.I.R was lodged by the 5th claimant in Crime No.72 of 2011 on the file of the Kandamanur Police Station. According to the claimants, the deceased was a vegetable vendor and she was earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- from the said business and she was a hale and healthy lady. The vehicle belonging to the first respondent was insured with the second respondent and the claimants are the sons and daughters of the deceased Meenachiammal. Hence, he prayed for a compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-

4. The first respondent namely the owner of the mother bike had remained exparte and the second respondent Insurance Company had filed a counter disputing the manner of accident and contended that the deceased was negligent because she crossed the road suddenly without giving any signal to the vehicles. The respondent further contended that the bike rider was not having a valid driving licence and hence, there is violation of the policy condition and the Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation. The respondent had also disputed the quantum of compensation.

5. The Tribunal after considering the oral and documentary evidence filed on either side, arrived at a finding that Meenachiammal died only due to the dashing of the motor bike. The Tribunal further found that no oral or documentary evidence have been placed on the side of the Insurance Company to prove that the deceased was negligent while crossing the road. The Tribunal further found that the accident has happened only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the bike driver which is owned by the first respondent.

6. The Tribunal further found that the motor bike was having a live insurance policy on the date of the accident. The bike driver was only having a Learner''s Driving Licence on the date of accident. As per Exhibit R1, after the accident, the bike driver has obtained a regular permanent driving licence on 14.07.2011. The Tribunal is of the view that holding of the learner''s licence is also an effective driving licence which was valid for a period between 05.04.2011 to 04.10.2011 and the accident has happened on 12.06.2011. Since the L.L.R was live on the date of the accident, the Tribunal proceeded to impose the liability on the Insurance Company. Thereafter, the Tribunal has proceeded to fix the quantum at Rs.2,05,000/-. Challenging the said award, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

7. The learned counsel for the Insurance Company had raised the following contentions:

(i). The bike driver was holding only a Learner''s Driving licence on the date of accident.

(ii). He has obtained a permanent driving licence only on 14.07.2011 after the date of accident. Therefore, a learner''s driving licence cannot be considered to be an effective and a valid driving licence, unless the bike driver is accompanied by a trainer and the ''L Board'' is displayed on the front and rear side of the bike.

(iii). The appellant has referred to Section 3 of the Motor Vehicles Act to contend that the Learner''s licence is always subject to the conditions that are prescribed by the Ce