The insurer is liable to pay compensation for an accident caused by an insured vehicle, even if the driver lacked a valid license, with the right to recover from the vehicle owner.

JUDGMENT :

(Order of the Court was made by P.VELMURUGAN,J)

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the award passed in M.C.O.P.No.1155 of 2021, dated 27.11.2023, on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special District Court, Madurai.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials placed before this Court.

3. The appellant is the Insurance Company and the second respondent in M.C.O.,P.No.1155 of 2021. The above M.C.O.P was taken with other M.C.O.Ps filed by the other claimants and a common judgment was pronounced on 27.11.2023. Aggrieved over the same, the second respondent therein filed the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

4. The brief facts of the case of the respondents 1 to 6/claimants is that the deceased was riding a motor cycle bearing Registration No. TN 65 U 4712 and when he was nearing S.P.Kottai, driver of the 7th respondent vehicle came from the opposite direction by riding a two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 67 BJ 3659 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the deceased vehicle. In both the two wheeler, there were pillion riders and due to the accident, in both two wheelers, the riders and pillion riders sustained injury and all of them succembed to injuries. Subsequently, they were brought to the hospital, where they were declared as dead. A case was also registered in Crime No.148 of 2020 under Section 279 and 304(A) of IPC. Since the seventh respondent two wheeler was insured with the appellant, as an insurer, the appellant is liable to pay compensation to the respondents 1 to 6, who are the legal representatives as well as dependants of the deceased and they claimed a sum of Rs.45 lakhs as compensation on various heads.

5. The case of the appellant herein/the second respondent therein is that the seventh respondent rode the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TB 67 BJ3659 with moderate speed and by observing the traffic rules and regulations. Only the rider of the opposite vehicle bearing Registration No. TB 65U 4712 rode the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the seventh respondent vehicle and both the vehicles are two wheelers and both the vehicles were driven by the riders along with pillion riders and due to the accident, four persons were thrown away from the vehicle and sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries and hence, the seventh respondent is not responsible for the accident and the accident had not occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the 7th respondent vehicle and the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent riding of the opposite vehcile. The vehicle was not insured with the appellant during the relevant point of time and the seventh respondent did not possess valid deriving licence to ride the two wheeler. Therefore the appellant is not liable to pay the compensation. Therefore the claim petition filed by the claimants/respondents 1 to 6 are liable to be dismissed.

6. The dependants of the deceased four persons have filed claim petitions separately and all the four claim petitions were taken up together and tried together and the Tribunal had passed a common order.

7. During enquiry, on the side of the respondents, claimants in all the cases together, five witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and 48 documents were marked as Ex.P1 to Ex.P48 and on the side of the appellants, two witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and four documents were marked as Ex.R1 to Ex.R4 besides one document was marked through witness as Ex.X1. After completion of examination of the witnesses and conclusion of the enquiry, hearing the arguments advanced on either side, the Tribunal found that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the two wheeler bearing Registration No. TN 67 BJ 3659 namely, the rider of the seventh respondent herein and however, at the time of accident, the rider of the seventh respondent did not possess valid driving licence and howeve