Insurers remain liable to compensate third parties despite policy violations regarding driver licensing under the Motor Vehicles Act amendments.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 16.04.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1319 of 2023 by the Special Subordinate Judge / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Thanjavur.

2. The facts of the case are as follows :- On 19.09.2023 at about 06.45 p.m., when the first respondent / claimant, after attending funeral ceremony of his relative, was walking along Saliyamangalam - Papanasam road in irumputhalai vettuvaykal bridge from North to South direction on the extreme left side of the road, a TVS Star City two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-68-AF-6473, which came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the first respondent / claimant and as a result, the first respondent / claimant sustained grievous multiple injuries. The first respondent / claimant was immediately taken to Thanjavur Government Medical College Hospital and thereafter, he was admitted in Thanjavur Shanthi Private Hospital for further treatment. A case came to be registered in Crime No.181 of 2023 against the rider of the two wheeler one Ayyappan and after completing investigation, final report was filed against the said Ayyappan for the offences under Sections 279 and 338 IPC. The claim petition was filed by the first respondent/claimant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

3. The second respondent / first respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the appellant / insurer.

4. The defence of the appellant / insurer is that the offending vehicle was driven by a person not having valid driving license and as such, the appellant / insurer is not liable to pay any amount, that since the second respondent / first respondent, allowed his minor son Ayyappan to ride the two wheeler without license, the compensation is to be paid only by him and not by the appellant / insurer and that the the first respondent / claimant suddenly entered the road to cross the road without looking at the vehicle or traffic on the road and in the process, he was hit and sustained injuries.

5. Before the Tribunal to prove their case, the first respondent/claimant has examined himself as P.W.1 and exhibited 8 documents as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.8. The appellant / insurer has examined 1 witness as R.W.1 and exhibited 6 documents as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.6. The disability certificate was exhibited as Ex.C.1.

6. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, has passed the impugned award dated 16.04.2025, holding that the two wheeler rider was responsible for the accident and directed the appellant / insurer to pay the award amount of Rs.3,48,190/- to the first respondent / claimant and then to recover the same from the second respondent / first respondent. Aggrieved by the said award, the insurer has come up with the present appeal.

7. It is pertinent to note that the appellant / insurer has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal that the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligence driving of the two wheeler rider and that they have also not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

8. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / insurer is that since the terms and conditions of the Policy was violated by allowing the minor to drive the two wheeler without valid driving license, the appellant / 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 Trib