The court ruled that insurers must compensate claimants even if the vehicle's rider lacks a valid license, emphasizing the benevolent nature of the Motor Vehicles Act.

JUDGMENT :

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special District Court to Deal with MCOP Cases No.I), Tiruvallur, in MCOP No.119/2018, as being meagre, the claimants, who are the daughter and son of the deceased has filed the present appeal.

2. The brief facts of the case necessary for the disposal of this appeal are as under :-

At about 1100 hours on 1.7.2018, when the deceased was standing on the side of the road near Kannan Rice Mill, Pondhavakkam Village, the vehicle, belonging to the 1^st respondent, being driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner, dashed against the deceased, in which the deceased suffered grievous injuries and the treatment initially at Government Hospital, Tiruvallur and, thereafter, for five days at Government Hospital, Chennai, being not successful, the deceased succumbed to the said injuries. The claimants, the daughter and son of the deceased, have, therefore, filed the claim petition in MCOP No.119 of 2018 claiming compensation.

3. Before the Tribunal, the claimants examined two witnesses as P.W.s 1 and 2 and marked Exs.P-1 to P-8. On the side of the 3^rd respondent/insurer, while no witness was examined, however, Exs.R-1 to R-7 were marked. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence, the Tribunal, ordered payment of compensation in a sum of Rs.18,61,676/- along with interest at 7.5% p.a. and apportioned the same equally between the claimants and directed the 3^rd respondent/insurer to pay the compensation. Aggrieved by the inadequate compensation awarded by the Tribunal, the present appeal has been preferred by the claimants.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the finding recorded by the Tribunal that the rider of the vehicle was not possessed of any valid licence and, therefore, the 3^rd respondent insurer cannot be mulcted with any responsibility to pay the compensation and, therefore, directed the 1^st and 2^nd respondents to pay the compensation is wholly perverse and the same deserves interference. Even otherwise, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants that the Tribunal ought to have directed the 3^rd respondent to pay the compensation and recover the same from the owner of the vehicle and to that extent the award requires modification.

5. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the deceased was eking her livelihood as a coolie and earning a sum of Rs.13,705/- per month, however, the Tribunal has fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.6500/- which is grossly meagre and the same requires enhancement.

6. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that no compensation has been awarded under the head love and affection and transportation and, therefore, necessary compensation requires to be awarded by this Court under the aforesaid heads.

7. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded under the heads loss of estate and funeral expenses is on the lower side and, therefore, the same requires to be enhanced.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the 3^rd respondent, viz., insurance company submits that the driver of the motorcycle being not possessed of a valid driving licence, absolving the insurer from payment of compensation is fully justifiable. In the alternative, it is the submission of the learned counsel that the compensation awarded by the Tribunal is just and reasonable and the same does not require any interference. It is the further submission of the learned counsel that there is no loss of dependency, as the claimants are married and settled and, therefore, the loss on account of the death of the deceased would not have an impact on the life of the claimants. Further, learned counsel fairly conceded that the insurance company has not challenged the award on the ground that it has been absolved from payment of compensation and if at all this Court feels that there is material in the contention advanced by the appell