Insurer is liable to compensate for third-party claims despite policy violations, reinforcing the legislative intent to prioritize victims over insurers.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 19.09.2024 passed in M.C.O.P.No.100 of 2022 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sivagangai.

2. The respondents 1 to 3 / claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.100 of 2022, claiming compensation for the death of one Kala, in an accident that took place on 07.09.2022. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.19,42,000/- (Rupees Nineteen Lakhs and Forty Two Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation. Against which, the appellant / insurer has preferred this appeal.

For the sake of convenience and brevity, the parties herein after will be referred as per their status/ranking in the Tribunal.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

The deceased Kala was aged about 31 years and was working as a load woman and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month. On 07.09.2022 at about 08.30 a.m., the deceased Kala was travelling as a load woman in a lorry bearing Registration No.TN-69-AH-4848 and near Sooranam, due to the rash and negligent driving of the lorry driver, the vehicle got capsized and as a result, the deceased Kala fall under the lorry and died on the spot. The claim petition was filed by the claimants seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.50,00,000/-.

4. The respondents 1 and 2 remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the insurer.

5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the insurer is as follows:

The passengers including the deceased Kala are unauthorized passengers. The lorry driver was not possessing valid driving license. There are contradictions between the FIR and the charge sheet with regard to the driver of the lorry.

6. On the side of the claimants, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 13 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.13. On the side of the insurer, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and 3 documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.3. 2 documents were marked as Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2.

7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, has passed the impugned award dated 19.09.2024, holding that the lorry driver was responsible for the accident and directed the insurer to pay the award amount of Rs.19,42,000/- to the claimants and then to recover the same from the owner of the lorry. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has come up with the present appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note that the insurer has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence driving of the lorry driver and that they have also not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

9. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the insurer is that since the terms and conditions of the Policy was violated by allowing a person to drive the lorry without valid driving license, the insurer cannot be fastened even with the liability of pay and recovery and that after amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act by the Central Act 32 of 2019 and the deletion of proviso to Section 149 (4) of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal cannot order pay and recovery.

10. It is not in dispute that the offending vehicle was insured with the insurer and that the insurance policy was in force on on the date of accident.

11. The points for consideration are:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal is empowered to order pay and recovery against insurer in case of violation of policy conditions after deletion of proviso to old Section 149 (4) and 149 (5) [now amended as Section 150 ] of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, by Mot