IMPORTANT POINT
The insurance company is liable to pay compensation for damages caused by a driver’s negligence, even if the driver lacked a valid license.

JUDGMENT :

R.SAKTHIVEL, J.

PRAYER: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the award dated 24.09.2021 made in M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Gingee.

PRAYER: Cross Objection filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to enhance the compensation awarded vide award dated 24.09.2021 made in MCOP No.231 of 2012 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Court), Gingee.

Feeling aggrieved with the Award dated September 24, 2021 passed by the 'Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Gingee' ('Tribunal' for short) in M.C.O.P.No.231 of 2012, the second respondent therein - Insurance Company has preferred C.M.A.No.1631 of 2022 praying to set aside the Award, while the petitioner therein namely Antony Fernando has preferred Cross Objection No.87 of 2022 to enhance the compensation.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as per their array before the Tribunal in the Motor Claim Original Petition.

Petitioner's case:

3. On October 30, 2011, at about 06.15 a.m., when the petitioner was riding his Motorcycle, bearing Registration No. TN 32-M-8093 from Puliyakulam Church towards Gandhipuram, a Car, bearing Registration No.TAR-5670, belonging to the first respondent, driven by him in a rash and negligent manner from West to East direction, collided with the petitioner's Motorcycle. Due to the accident, the petitioner sustained severe fracture and injuries. The accident happened due to the rash and negligent driving of the Driver of the first respondent's vehicle. Initially, the petitioner was admitted in Coimbatore Medical College and Hospital, Coimbatore, wherein he was administered first-aid. Thereafter, he was admitted in Ganga Hospital, Coimbatore for further treatment. The petitioner was treated as an inpatient for more than 115 days and is still under treatment. He has not yet recovered fully. The petitioner is not in a position to walk, sit or stand as before and the petitioner is completely impaired and disabled. Hence, the petitioner is not in a position to return to work, resulting in continuous loss of income. He has spent more than Rs.25,00,000/- towards medical expenses and he continues to incur medical expenses till date. The first respondent's vehicle has been insured with the second respondent – Insurance Company. Hence, both the respondents are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner seeking compensation of Rs.75,00,000/- (Rupees Seventy Five Lakhs Only) with interest and costs, filed the above Claim Petition before the Tribunal.

4. Though substituted service was effected, the first respondent did not appear and contest the petition. Hence, he was set ex parte before the Tribunal.

5. The second respondent – Insurance Company filed counter stating that the accident occurred due to the negligent driving of the petitioner. The petitioner and his friend - Dhaya Sankar, were riding the Motorcycle while conversing without following the traffic rules. There was no negligence on the part of the first respondent's vehicle. Further, the first respondent did not possess any valid driving license and hence, the second respondent is not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. Accordingly, the second respondent-Insurance Company prayed to dismiss the Original Petition.

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, the petitioner was examined as P.W.1 and Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.26 were marked. On the side of the second respondent, no evidence was let in. One Mr.Rupesh, Head Constable, attached to Coimbatore East Police Station Traffic Wing was examined as C.W.1 and Ex-X.1 was marked. Disability Certificate issued by the Medical Board was marked as Ex-C.1.

7. The Tribunal, after analysing the oral and documentary evidence adduced before it, came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the first respondent and sinc