IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an Insurance Company may still be liable for compensation despite the driver's lack of a valid license if negligence is proven against the other party.

JUDGMENT :

(P. Velmurugan, J.) :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 176 of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2019, dated 3.7.2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge (Subordinate Judge), Ambasamudram.)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award made in M.C.O.P.No.6 of 2019, dated 3.7.2023, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal Judge(Subordinate Judge), Ambasamudram.

2. The Insurance Company is the appellant. The case of the claimant is that the first respondent is the father of the deceased Vignesh and the second respondent is his mother. On 28.4.2018 at about 16.00 hours at Papanasam Ambasamudram Road, while the deceased was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 59 V 0747 Boxer proceeding in West to east direction along with one Arunkumar as pillion rider to pick up his sister from Ambasamudram Railway Station, the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN 76 AW 3045 Tipper Vehicle proceeding from east to west driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed against the above said vehicle and cause the death. In this regard a case was registered in Crime No.187 of 2018, on the file of Ambasamudram Police and the same is pending on the file of learned Judicial Magistrate, Ambasamudram. At the time of accident, the deceased was aged about 23 years and employed as Company Trade Apprentice in a private company and earning a sum of Rs.14,739/- and thus, claimed a sum of Rs.75 lakhs as compensation.

3. The case of the respondents 1 to 4 therein is that the claim petition has been filed suppressing the material facts and due to the rash and negligent driving of the deceased vignesh, the accident had occurred and the driver of the first respondent is not responsible for the accident and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

4. The learned counsel for the appellant Insurance Company submitted that the driver of the insured vehicle is not holding due, valid and effective driving licence to drive the vehicle at the time of accident. The driver of the insured vehicle at the time of accident is without any valid driving licence drove the said vehcile is in contravention of the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Motor Vehicle Rules. Under Section 37 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the person holding valid and subsisting driving licence should drive the vehicle and further he would submit that the driver of the insured vehicle is not the cause for the accident.

5. As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant produced the salary certificate Ex.P12. As per Ex.P12, the monthly salary of the deceased at the time of accident is Rs.14,739/- but whereas, the Tribunal fixed the monthly income at Rs.18,000/- which is against the provisions of law and also Ex.P12 shows only as Stiphend Certificate and there is no permanent employment and therefore the Tribunal ought have fixed the notional income only below Rs.14,000/- and not at Rs.18,000/-. Further he would submit that the Insurance Company is not liable to indemnify on behalf of the owner of the offending vehicle bearing Registration No.TN 76 AW 3045 when the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding duly valid and effective driving licence on the date of the alleged accident and hence, there is no direct liability on the part of the appellant to pay any compensation amount and only the owner of the alleged insured vehicle is liable to pay the compensation. The initial burden of proving that the driver of the insured vehicle was not holding duly valid and effective driving licence at the time of accident and the onus is shifted on the owner of the vehicle to prove that he is possessing valid driving licence and he has not breached the conditions of policy and the quantum fixed by the Tribunal is on higher side and it does not reflect the just and fair compensation. Therefore the appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by t