IMPORTANT POINT
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the insurance company was not liable to pay the compensation due to the violation of policy conditions, the claimant's negligence, and the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, challenging the fair and decreetal order dated 10.01.2018, made in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Sub Court), Dharmapuri.)

1. This appeal is filed by the Insurance Company challenging the liability and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 dated 10.01.2018.

2. The appellant is the Insurance Company, first respondent is claimant and second respondent is owner of the offending vehicle. The first respondent filed claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.2780 of 2014 seeking compensation of Rs.15,00,000/- for the injuries sustained by him in the accident.

3. According to the first respondent/claimant on 05.08.2012, at about 9.15 p.m. when the first respondent riding the two wheeler bearing Reg.No.TN 29 AM 1415 at request of his employer the second respondent to buy diesel, in the Palacode Krishnagiri Main Road, Bypass Road, near Krishna Cement Shop, due to the over light from the head light of the vehicle came from opposite direction, the claimant dashed the two wheeler against Hoganakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project pipeline and sustained grievous injuries.

4. The claim petition was contested by the appellant/Insurance company, which filed a detailed counter denying all the allegations in the claim petition apart from disputing the negligence, quantum and liability.

5. Before the claims Tribunal, the claimant was examined as P.W.1 and Exs.P1 to P16 were marked in support of the claim. On the side of the appellant/Insurance Company, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R5 were marked.

6. The claims Tribunal, on an assessment of the entire evidence on record, fixed the liablity on the appellant/Insurance Company and awarded a sum of Rs.18,12,800/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest and since there was violation of policy condition ordered pay and recovery. Questioning the liability and challenging the quantum of compensation, the Insurance Company has filed the present appeal before this Court.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/Insurance Company would submit that the accident took place on 05.08.2012, whereas the FIR was registered only on 28.07.2014, after the lapse of two years and the claimant has not stated that he had driven the vehicle and the accident had occurred during the course employment and the claimant was working for the owner of the vehicle viz. the second respondent. Further at the time of accident the claimant did not possess valid driving license to drive the two wheeler, insured with the appellant and the accident had occurred only due to the negligence of the claimant.

7.1. Further the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the Accident Register of the claimant clearly shows that the claimant, at the time of accident, was under the influence of the alcohol and hence on his own negligence, the accident had occurred. Hence once the rider of the vehicle, at the time of accident, did not possess valid driving license and was under the influence of alcohol, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay compensation, due to violation of policy conditions. Even though the Tribunal accepted the above facts, but erroneously ordered for pay and recovery and hence the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation and the appellant/Insurance Company has to be exonerated from the liability.

8. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/claimant would submit that the claimant was working under the second respondent to maintain his land and Tractor. On the date of occurrence i.e. on 05.08.2012, the second respondent asked the claimant to buy diesel and hence he took the two wheeler owned by the second respondent, insured with the appellant. The claimant, keeping the 10 liters can on the vehicle, was riding the two wheeler on the Palacode Dharmapuri Main Road near Krishna Cement Shop, due to the o