Insurers cannot deny liability to third parties solely based on the insured's invalid driving license unless proven fundamental to the accident's cause.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed by the injured/claimant challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, dismissing the original petition against the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company and directing the 1^st respondent/owner-cum-driver of the offending vehicle to pay the compensation amount.

2. It is the case of the claimant that on 08.04.2018, when the claimant was driving in his two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 BT 2374 in Bishop School Road, near Dollar Quarters by adhering to the traffic rules and regulations, the 1^st respondent came in his Honda Activa two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN 39 BT 9015 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant's vehicle. As a result of which, the claimant was thrown away and sustained grievous injuries. Hence, a claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- against the respondents.

3. The 1^st respondent remained exparte before the Tribunal and the claim was resisted by the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company by denying the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. It was also claimed by the 2^nd respondent that the 1^st respondent/rider of the vehicle insured with it, did not posses effective driving license on the date of accident and hence, the 2^nd respondent was not liable to pay compensation to the claimant. It was also stated that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the claimant himself.

4. Before the Tribunal, the appellant/claimant was examined as PW.1 and yet another witness was examined as PW.2. On behalf of the claimant, 11 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P11. The Legal Officer of the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company was examined as RW.1 and on behalf of the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company, 4 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R4. The copy of the Aadhar Card of PW.2 was marked as Ex.X1.

5. The Tribunal based on the evidence available on record came to the conclusion that accident had occurred due to the negligence on the part of the driving of the 1^st respondent. However, the Tribunal held that the 1^st respondent did not possess valid driving license on the date of accident and the same would amount to fundamental breach of the terms of insurance with the 2^nd respondent-insurance company and hence, the Tribunal exonerated the 2^nd respondent-insurance company from paying compensation amount. The amount payable to the claimant was quantified as Rs.3,42,916/-. Aggrieved by the said award, the claimant has come before this Court.

6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant/claimant by relying on the decisions of the Apex Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd., vs. Swaran Singh and others reported in (2004) 3 SCC 297 and Singh Ram vs. Nirmala and others reported in 2018 (1) TN MAC 704 (SC), submitted that the Tribunal committed an error in exonerating the 2^nd respondent/Insurance Company. The learned counsel further submitted that the amount awarded by the Tribunal towards loss of income is very much on lower side and the same requires enhancement.

7. In order to prove negligence, the claimant examined himself as PW.1. He clearly deposed that the accident had occurred only due to the negligence on the part of the 1^st respondent. The evidence of PW.1 is very well corroborated with the contents of the FIR marked as Ex.P1, which was filed against the 1^st respondent. It is also seen that final report was also filed against the 1^st respondent after investigation and the same was marked as Ex.P2. Based on the evidence of PW.1, Exs.P1 and P2, the Tribunal rightly came to the conclusion