IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liability fixation in the context of the 9th respondent's possession of a valid driving license and the violation of policy conditions.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, to set aside the judgement and decree dated 18.03.2020 made in MCOP.No.142 of 2016 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, II Additional District Judge, Villupuram @ Tindivanam.)

1. This civil miscellaneous appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 18.03.2020 in MCOP.No.142 of 2018.

2. The learned counsel for the claimant would submit that on 03.02.2013 when one Poongavanam was riding a bi-cycle at Marakkanam to Tindivanam Road, a Motor Cycle TVS Sport bearing Registration No.TN-16A-1863 came in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against him, due to which he was died at the Hospital on the same day. Considering all the aspects, the Tribunal had awarded the compensation in the following manner :

3. He would further submit that in the present case, there is no dispute with regard to the occurrence of accident and quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. The only issue that has to be decided in this matter is with regard to the fixation of liability. Further, he would submit that the owner of the vehicle/9th respondent had insured his motorcyle with the appellant, however at the time of accident, 9th respondent was not having any valid driving license. In this regard, a letter has also been sent by the Tribunal to the 9th respondent, however, no reply was received by the appellant. The aforesaid aspects were recorded in the order passed by the Tribunal. Further, in the said order, it has been stated that since no charge has been framed with regard to the non-possession of driving license against the 9th respondent in Ex.P8/Charge Sheet, the Tribunal had failed to consider the contention made by the appellant before the Tribunal. Hence, he would contend that the Tribunal is supposed to decide independently based on the records available and it is not proper for the Tribunal to arrive at a conclusion merely based on the Ex.P8/ charge sheet, wherein the police had failed to include the charge of non-possession of driving license. Thus, insurance company is no way liable to pay the compensation. That apart, he would submit that the entire award amount has already been deposited by the Tribunal and hence, he requests this Court to order pay and recovery from the 9th respondent.

4. The notice has been served to the 9th respondent and the name of the 9th respondent has also been printed in the cause list. However, in spite of the same, there is no representation on behalf of the 9th respondent. Hence, this Court is inclined to pass the following order without any other option.

5. As far as claimant is concerned, he would submit that any order may be passed by this Court considering the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents and also perused the documents available on records.

7. Considering the above submissions and on perusal of the award passed by the Tribunal, it appears that the Tribunal had merely accepted the contention of the appellant that the rider/9th respondent had not possessed a valid driving license and accordingly, sent a letter to the 9th respondent to produce the driving license of the driver. In spite of the same, the 9th respondent had not produced a copy of his driving license either before the Tribunal or before the appellant. Further, the 9th respondent had not even appeared before the Tribunal and deposed any oral evidence to prove that he had possessed a valid driving license. Hence, based on this material evidence, the Tribunal could have come to a conclusion that the 9th respondent had not posse