Insurers are liable to pay compensation to third parties despite violations of policy conditions, as the deletion of certain statutory provisions does not negate their obligation.

JUDGMENT :

K.K.RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 07.03.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1544 of 2022 by the Special Sub Judge dealing with MCOP cases / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirunelveli.

2. The first respondent / claimant has filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1544 of 2022, claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him, in an accident that took place on 02.08.2022. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.6,63,000/- (Rupees Six Lakhs and Sixty Three Thousand only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation. Against which, the appellants / insurer have 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 claimant was aged about 57 years and was working as a coolie and was earning Rs.28,500/- per month. On 02.08.2022 at about 03.30 p.m., when the claimant was travelling in a Passion Pro two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-92-C-1816 as a pillion rider, near Vasvappaneri Colony, another Passion Pro two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-92-H-0439 belonging to the first respondent, which came in the wrong side in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the claimant's vehicle and as a result, the claimant sustained grievous multiple injuries. The claimant was immediately taken to Government Hospital, Karungulam and after first-aid, he was taken to TVMC Hospital at Highground. Due to the accidental injuries, he is not able to stretch or fold his left hand and is not able to sit, stand, walk or squat and is not in a position to do his normal avocation and he was hale and healthy at the time of accident. The claimant spent huge amount for treatment, medicines, conveyance and other charges. The claim petition was filed by the claimant seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.15,00,000/-.

4. The first respondent, owner of the vehicle, 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 age, income, nature of injuries and the manner of the accident of the claimant are all denied. FIR was lodged only after 12 days from the date of accident. The first respondent's vehicle was not involved in the alleged accident. The first respondent was not possessing valid driving license. The claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant.

6. On the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 9 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.9. On the side of the insurer, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and 5 documents were marked as Ex.R.1 to Ex.R.5. 2 documents were marked as Ex.X.1 and Ex.X.2 through witnesses. The disability certificate of the claimant was marked as Ex.C.1.

7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, has passed the impugned award dated 07.03.2025, holding that the first respondent was responsible for the accident and directed the insurer to pay the award amount of Rs.6,63,000/- to the claimant and then to recover the same from the first respondent. 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 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 the first respondent to drive the two wheeler without valid driving license, the insurer