JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act praying this Court to set aside the portion of the award amount relating to the payment of compensation by the first respondent alone and directing the second respondent also to pay the compensation to the appellant in M.C.O.P.No.1119 of 2006, on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Judge's Court, Tiruchirappalli.)

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the claimant questioning the award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal/III Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy in M.C.O.P.No.1119 of 2006.

2. The appellant is the claimant in the original petition and he sought compensation of Rs.2 lakhs for the injuries sustained by him in the accident which had taken place on 04.12.2005. It is alleged that the appellant was a passenger in the bus bearing Registration No.TN 45 P 9155 which is owned by the first respondent and insured with the second respondent. The bus was stopped in the bus-stop to enable the passengers to get in and get down. While the claimant was getting down from the bus, the driver moved it in a rash and negligent manner, resulting the claimant fell down from the vehicle and sustained multiple injuries. He was immediately admitted in the Government Hospital at Trichy where he was treated as inpatient.

3. The second respondent had filed a counter disputing the averments and allegations made in the claim petition. It is also contended that the driver of the offending bus was not having valid driving licence and hence no liability can be fastened on the Insurance Company.

4. The Tribunal, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, adduced by the parties, held that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus and further having found that the bus was driven by a person who did not have a valid driving licence, directed the owner to pay the compensation of Rs.85,000/-

5. Mr. T. Selvakumaran, learned counsel representing Mr.P.Muthiah, learned counsel on record, would submit that the claimant is a third party and the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the bus. Since it was proved before the Tribunal that the vehicle was insured with the second respondent, the insurer is liable to pay the award amount.

6. Per contra, Mr.J.S.Murali, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent/Insurance Company submitted that the evidence produced by the claimant himself established that the driver of the bus did not have valid driving licence and in view of the recent decision of the Honourable Apex Court in the case of Belli Ram vs. Rajinder Kumar and another reported in 2020(2)TNMAC 445(SC) and the order passed by this Court in C.M.A.Nos.3506 and 3507 of 2014, dated 18.11.2020, no interference is required in this matter.

7. In reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the Honourable Apex Court dealt with the matter arising under the Workmen Compensation Act and it cannot be applied to the case on hand.

8. Heard the rival submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. It is relevant to point out that the finding of the Tribunal that the occurrence had taken place due to the negligence of the driver of the bus has reached its finality and only questioning the liability, the present appeal has been filed.

10. In the instant case, admittedly the first respondent herein is the owner of the offending vehicle. In the counter filed by the second respondent, it has been categorically stated that the driver of the bus was not holding a valid and effective driving licence. Ex.P4-Judgment of the Criminal Court reveals that the driver of the vehicle was prosecuted under Section 3 r/w Section 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act for non possessing of the licence and it ended in conviction.

11. It is true that the onus is on the Insurance Company to prove that the driver of the vehicle was not holding valid driving lic