A valid learner’s driving license and being accompanied by a licensed driver fulfill legal requirements, impacting liability in motor vehicle accident claims.

JUDGMENT

Dated this the 13th day of December, 2023 The appeal on hand is originated from an award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Irinjalakuda (for short ‘the Tribunal’) on 31.03.2021 in O.P.(M.V)

No.413/2017.

2. The appellants are the driver and the registered owner of the offending vehicle involved in a motor accident occurred at about 4.30 p.m on 12.12.2016. For the sake of convenience, the parties to this appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the petitioner and respondent Nos.1 to 3 in accordance with their status in the Original Petition.

3. The offending vehicle was a Maruti Omni Van bearing Registration No.KL-08-F-9108, which was driven by the 2nd respondent at the relevant time. The petitioner was driving an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL- 08-BD-5971 which was dashed by an Omni Van bearing Registration No.KL-08-F-9108 at Paravattani Centre in Thrissur-Palakkad public road and thereby he sustained serous injuries. He was rushed to Jubilee Mission Hospital, Thrissur and was treated as inpatient. Motor accident was allegedly occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the Omni Van by it’s driver. Arraying the registered owner, the driver and the insurer of the Omni Van as respondents 1 to 3 and claiming a sum of `8,00,000/- as compensation, the above Original Petition was filed before the Tribunal.

4. All respondents were served with notice. Written statement was filed by the 1st respondent contending that he was not the owner of the vehicle at the relevant time of the motor accident. It was contended furthermore that the amount claimed as compensation is excessive and devoid of any basis. Claims of the petitioner regarding the age, occupation and monthly income was also disputed.

5. 2nd respondent did not turn up to contest the matter and therefore was declared as ex parte. 3rd respondent reported to have filed a written statement admitting insurance coverage for the Omni Van bearing Registration No.KL-08-F-9108 as on date of motor accident. It was contended by the 3rd respondent that the 2nd respondent who was driving the Maruti Omni Van at the relevant time of the motor accident was not holding a driving licence to drive the same. Negligence of the 2nd respondent is denied and contended that compensation claimed under various heads are excessive and without any basis.

6. Before the Tribunal, the petitioner has marked Exts.A1 to A12 in evidence. On the side of the 2nd respondent a witness was examined as RW1. 3rd respondent has marked Exts.B1 to B5 in evidence. Based on the criminal case documents marked in evidence as Exts.A1, A3 and A4, Tribunal found that the motor accident in question was occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the Maruti Omni Van by the 2nd respondent. The Tribunal also found on the basis of Ext.A2 wound certificate and Ext.A10 discharge summary that the petitioner had sustained serious injuries in the motor accident. It arrived at `2,46,359/-, rounded off to `2,46,400/- as the total compensation payable. It also directed the 3rd respondent, the insurer of the offending vehicle to deposit the sum arrived at with interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 20.04.2017 till realisation. The impugned award was taken up in challenge by the 1st and 2nd respondents in the appeal on hand.

7. The main ground of challenge in the appeal was that the Tribunal has fixed liability on 1st and 2nd respondents and directed the 3rd respondent to deposit the entire compensation and permitted it to recover the same for the reason that the 2nd respondent was not holding a driving licence to drive the Omni Van at the relevant time.

According to him the above fixation of liability by the Tribunal is on the wrong side.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants pointed out primarily that the Tribunal has taken a wrong view in the impugned award that the 2nd respondent was called absent and set ex-parte. According to the learned counsel, the 2nd respondent had already filed a written statement and