JUDGMENT

Both these appeals arose from a common award passed by the tribunal in O.P. (MV) Nos.893/2006 and 894/2006 on the files of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tirur.

2. The accident occurred when the appellants were travelling in an autorickshaw bearing registration No.KL-10C-4853 through Manathadam-Kuttippala public road, it capsized due to the rash and negligent driving of the 2nd respondent, thereby, causing injuries to them. The 1st respondent was the owner of the said vehicle and it was insured with the 3rd respondent. The claim petitions were submitted in such circumstances seeking compensation.

3. The 1st respondent filed a written statement contending that he had already transferred the ownership of the vehicle on 02.08.2006 in favour of the 2nd respondent and he was not in the possession and control of the said vehicle. The 2nd respondent did not contest the matter. The 3rd respondent alone contested the matter by filing a written statement wherein they admitted the existence of a valid policy for the autorickshaw but contended that the 2nd respondent was driving the autorickshaw without a valid driving licence and badge, as on the date of the accident. Thus, there is a violation of policy conditions. They filed I.A. No.4323/2007 for calling the 2nd respondent to produce the driving licence, but he did not produce it.

4. The evidence in this claim petition consists of Exts.A1 to A21, Exts.C1 and C2 and Exts.B1 and B2.

5. After the trial, the tribunal came to the conclusion that the accident occurred due to negligence on the part of the 2nd respondent in driving the autorickshaw. However, as it was found that he was driving the autorickshaw without a valid driving licence, the 3rd respondent was exonerated from liability. The quantum of compensation in O.P. (MV) No.893/2006 was fixed as Rs.40,480/-, and in O.P. (MV) No.894/2006, an amount of Rs.59,120/- was awarded. The said amount was to be recovered from the 2nd respondent, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum with proportionate cost. These appeals are submitted by the respective claimants in the said claim petition, challenging the exoneration of the insurance company and also seeking enhancement of compensation.

6. Heard Sri. C.A. Chacko, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants in both the appeals and Smt. M. Hemalatha, the learned counsel appearing for the 3rd respondent.

6. One of the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is with regard to the exoneration of the insurance company. It was pointed out that, even if the 2nd respondent was did not have a driving licence, that would not enable the insurance company to get exonerated from the liability. I find some force in the said contention. As far as the act of driving a vehicle without a driving licence is concerned, the same can only be a dispute between the insured and the insurer. Under no circumstances the same can have any impact on the claim put forward by the claimant, who is a third party, for the injuries sustained in a motor accident. The Court is under an obligation to ensure the speedy recovery of the compensation to the victim. Moreover, it is a well-settled position of law that when the question of violation of policy has been raised and proved, the proper course to be adopted is to direct the insurance company to satisfy the award at the first instance and permit them to get the said compensation recovered, from the registered owner of the said vehicle. Therefore, the finding of the tribunal exonerating the insurance company was not at all legally sustainable and it is accordingly set aside.

7. The next issue to be considered is the quantum of compensation. The said issues are dealt with in the following manner.

8. OP(MV) No.893/2006 which is the subject matter in MACA

881/2012

8.1. In this case, the appellant/claimant was a coolie aged

44 years and the monthly income claimed was Rs.3,500/-. In the accident, he sustained a physical disability of 5% which was accep