IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that an insurance company is liable for compensation even if the driver lacks a valid license, provided negligence is proven.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.) :

(Prayer: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the Award dated 20.11.2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.366 of 2018 on the file of MACT/Fast Track Mahila Court at Namakkal.)

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the Award dated November 20, 2019 made in M.C.O.P.No.366 of 2018 on the file of 'Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Tribunal, Sessions (Fast Track Mahila) Court, Namakkal' [henceforth 'Tribunal' for brevity].

2. The appellants herein are the petitioners before the Tribunal. The petitioners filed Claim Petition against the respondents seeking compensation for the death caused by the first respondent's Driver to one Panneerselvam who is the husband of the first petitioner, father of the second petitioner and son of the third petitioner.

Petitioners' case

3. The case of the petitioners is that on March 28, 2017, at about 06.45 p.m., first petitioner's husband namely Panneerselvam was riding Yamaha Libro Two Wheeler bearing Registration No.TN28-M-4687 on the left side of the Bodinaickanpetty Road in south to north direction. At that time, an Excavator (JCB) bearing Registration No.TN28-AP-5206 owned by the first respondent was proceeding in front of Panneerselvam's Two Wheeler. The first respondent's Driver without observing the traffic rules, drove the Excavator (JCB) in a rash and negligent manner and due to which an accident occurred and the first petitioner's husband - Panneerselvam sustained grievous injuries and died on the spot. According to the petitioners, the accident took place only due to the rash and negligent driving of the first respondent's Driver. At the time of accident, the first petitioner's husband Panneerselvam was 35 years old and he was a Lorry Driver and was earning a sum of Rs.15,000/- per month. The first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the minor son born to the first petitioner and Panneerselvam and third petitioner is the mother of Panneerselvam. A criminal case was registered in Crime No.334 of 2017 under Sections 279 and 304(A) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 against the first respondent's Driver.

First Respondent's case

4. Though notice was served on the first respondent, the first respondent did not choose to contest the petition and he remained absent and hence, he was set ex parte before the Tribunal.

Second Respondent's case

5. The second respondent - Insurance Company filed a counter, wherein it is averred that the accident occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the first petitioner's husband - Panneerselvam. The place of occurrence is stated to be in the middle of the road which proves that the deceased was not riding his motorcycle on the left side of the road. It is not true that the first respondent's Driver applied the brake suddenly and that he is responsible for the accident. The first respondent's Driver was driving the Excavator [JCB] at a normal speed and when the deceased - Panneerselvam tried to overtake the Excavator [JCB] on its right side and lost control of his vehicle suddenly and collied with the back side of the Excavator [JCB]. At the time of accident, the deceased was not wearing Helmet and he sustained severe head injury. The accident had taken place due to the negligent act of the deceased - Panneerselvam. Further, the Driver of the first respondent [JCB] was not having proper driving license to drive such vehicle. Hence, the second respondent – Insurance Company is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, the second respondent prayed to dismiss the Original Petition.

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, the first petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and one Anbalagan was examined as P.W.2 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Manimozhi was examined as R.W.1 and Ex-R.1 and Ex-R.2 were marked.

7. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the first respondent's Driver was r