The court ruled that the insurance company must pay compensation despite the driver's alleged lack of a valid license, as the Tribunal's reasoning was found to be erroneous.

JUDGMENT :

(M. DHANDAPANI, J.)

These two appeals arising out of the award passed by the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in M.C.O.P.No.937 of 2006 dated 29.04.2011.

2. C.M.A.No.2944 of 2011 is filed by the insurance company questioning their liability to pay the compensation to the claimant.

3. C.M.A.No.495 of 2015 is filed by the owner of the offending vehicle questioning his liability to pay the compensation amount to the insurance company on such payment being made by them to the claimant.

4. Since the issue arises in these two appeal arise out of the accident that happened on 03.09.2005, they are disposed of by way of this common judgment.

5. The brief facts leading to the filing of these two appeal are as follows :-

(i) The claimant, who is not before this Court, had filed a claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal claiming a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/- on account of the injuries sustained by him in the accident that happened on 03.09.2005 at about 13.00 hours, he was travelling in a tractor cum trailer bearing Regn.No.TN-41-L-7196 along with the agricultural products belonging to the appellant in C.M.A.No.495 of 2015 and insured with the appellant in C.M.A.No.2944 of 2011. At that time, the vehicle driven by the first respondent in the claim petition, who is another workman of the owner of the offending vehicle. When the vehicle was proceeding from Setthumadai to Pollachi main road towards south to north near premier mill Devipattinam, due to the rash and driving of the driver, the claimant was thrown away from the tractor, thereby, the claimant's left leg got behind the wheels and sustained bone fracture. Immediately, he was admitted as inpatient in Coimbatore Medical College hospital. Due to the accident, his left leg was amputated.

(ii) It is the claimed by the claimant that he was working as agricultural coolie and earning a sum of Rs.3,000/- p.m. He was aged about 22 years and because of the amputation on his left leg, he has lost his earning capacity. Therefore, he filed claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-.

(iii) Both the insurance company and the owner of the offending vehicle filed respective counter denying their liability to pay compensation.

6. Before the Tribunal, the claimant had examined two witnesses viz., P.W.1 and P.W.2 and marked 8 documents viz., Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. On the side of the respondents, they have examined two witnesses viz., R.W.1 and R.W.2 and marked 2 documents viz., Ex.R.1 and Ex.R.2. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties and perusing the materials produced before it, held that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the driver of the offending vehicle and awarded a sum of Rs.2,90,000/-, directing the insurance company to pay the same and thereafter, recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle. Aggrieved by the same, both the insurance company as well as the owner of the offending vehicle filed the present appeals.

7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.M.A.No.2944 of 2011/insurance company submitted that, the insurance company has let in evidence through R.W.1, Junior Assistant of the Pollachi Regional Transport Office, to show that the driver of the tractor did not possess valid driving licence and thereby, he breached the policy conditions. Therefore, he submitted that the insurance company cannot be fastened with entire liability to pay the entire compensation to the claimant.

8. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in C.M.A.No.495 of 2015/owner of the offending vehicle submitted that, the claimant was in an inebriated condition and thereby, he fell down from the tractor and therefore, he had contributed for the accident. Therefore, the owner of the offending vehicle is not liability to pay any compensation. Since the vehicle was insured with the insurance company, the entire liability should be fastened only on the insurance company. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the a