IMPORTANT POINT
The insurer remains liable for compensation in motor accident claims even if the driver lacks a valid license, provided negligence is established.

JUDGMENT :

(R. Sakthivel, J.) :

(Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against Award dated 26.10.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.289 of 2018 by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District and Sessions Court), Gobichettipalayam.)

Feeling aggrieved with the Award dated October 26, 2021 passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (III Additional District and Sessions Court) Gobichettipalayam' [henceforth 'Tribunal' for brevity] in M.C.O.P.No.289 of 2018, the third respondent therein, namely United India Insurance Company Limited has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal.

Petitioners' case

3. First petitioner is the wife, second petitioner is the son and third petitioner is the mother of the deceased Gopal. On May 25, 2017 at about 17.00 hours, the said Gopal was riding his Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN36-K-1578. While nearing Bommanaickenpalayam Society, the first respondent, who was coming in the opposite direction, on a Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN33-AS-8455, collided with the said Gopal's motorcycle. In the said accident, the first petitioner's husband Gopal sustained grievous head injury and lost consciousness. He was immediately taken to SK Hospital, where first-aid was given and thereafter, he was referred to Royal Care Hospital at Coimbatore, where the Doctor informed that there is no possibility of survival. Hence, Gopal was discharged from Royal Care Hospital and taken to the Government Hospital, Gobichettipalayam. On the way, Gopal succumbed to the head injury. A criminal case was registered against the first respondent in Crime No.362 of 2017 under Sections 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) on the file of Gobichettipalayam Police Station. At the time of accident, deceased-Gopal was a Farmer engaged in agriculture and was also had ten milch cows and earning a sum of Rs.35,000/- per month. Accordingly, the petitioners filed Motor Claim Original Petition claiming compensation for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh Only) from the respondents.

1st and 2nd Respondents' case

4. First respondent is the rider and second respondent is the owner of the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN33-AS-8455.

5. Despite service of notice, first and second respondents did not choose to contest the petition and hence they were called absent and accordingly, set ex-parte.

3rd Respondent's case

6. Third respondent is the insurer of the second respondent's Motorcycle. The third respondent – Insurance Company filed a counter wherein it is averred that the accident occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the deceased-Gopal. In the Accident Register issued by SK Hospital, Gobichettipalayam, it is clearly mentioned that 'the deceased fell down from the two wheeler and cause unknown'. Therefore, it is false to say that the alleged accident occurred due to the collision caused by the Motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN33-AS-8455. Further, at the time of accident, the first respondent had no valid driving license to drive the Motorcycle. Therefore, the third respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners. Accordingly, he prayed to dismiss the Original Petition.

7. At trial, on the side of the petitioners, first petitioner-Krishnaveni was examined as P.W.1, Kaliyannasamy was examined as P.W.2, Yasodha, sister-in-law of the first petitioner was examined as P.W.3 and Jothi was examined as P.W.4 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.25 were marked. On the side of the respondents, one Shanu, Manager attached to the third respondent – Insurance Company was examined as R.W.1 and M.R.Mukundan, Motor Vehicle Inspector was examined as R.W.2 and Ex-R.1 and Ex-R.2 were marked.

8. After analyzing the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to t