J U D G M E N T

This appeal arises out of award in O.P.(MV)No.852 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kollam dated 10.10.2012. The appellants herein are respondents 1 and 2, the owner and the driver of the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02/V 4067, involved in the accident, driven by the second respondent. The respondents herein are the insurer as well as the claimant before the Tribunal.

2. Heard Adv.Smt.N.Sudha, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, Adv.Smt.SreeVidhya, the learned counsel appearing for the claimant and Adv.Sri.Lal George, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the insurance company.

3. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

The claimant before the Tribunal, who sustained injuries pursuant to an accident occurred on 13.11.2005 at 11.00 a.m., while he was travelling on his motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02/T 7109 and when he was knocked down by the motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL-02/V 4067 driven by the second respondent, approached the Tribunal and pressed for compensation to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/- on the allegation that he sustained very serious injuries in the accident.

4. Respondents 1 and 2 filed written statement before the Tribunal disputing negligence and quantum, while highlighting policy with the third respondent.

5. R3 filed written statement admitting policy and disputing the negligence. While challenging the quantum, a specific contention raised to the effect that the second respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident and therefore, the company has no liability to indemnify the insured.

6. The Tribunal ventured the matter relying on the documentary evidence. Exts.A1 to A10 marked on the side of the claimant and Ext.B1 marked on the side of the respondents. Finally, the Tribunal granted Rs.2,08,000/- as compensation along with 7.5% interest as against the claim of Rs.10,00,000/-.

7. The Tribunal found that the second respondent did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of accident and thereby granted recovery right to the insurer in respect of the award amount.

8. The appellants are aggrieved by the award on two grounds. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the second respondent was having driving licence at the time of accident to drive motorcycle with gear and Ext.B1 is the copy of the said licence.

9. On perusal of Ext.B1 licence, it is noticed that the second respondent possessed a valid driving licence to 'drive light motor vehicles' and he did not possess driving licence either to drive motorcycle with gear or without gear. Thus, it appears that the second respondent did not posses a valid driving licence to ride either motorcycle with gear or without gear at the time of accident and therefore, there is violation of policy conditions. In view of the matter, the recovery right granted by the Tribunal for the said ground does not require any interference and the same shall stand confirmed.

10. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellants that the quantum of compensation granted by the Tribunal is on higher side. It is submitted that in this matter, no disability certificate produced by the claimant and the Tribunal suo motu fixed the disability at 12% and by fixing monthly income at Rs.3,000/-, Rs.64,800/- was granted towards disability income. The learned counsel would submit that the said procedure adopted by the Tribunal is wrong and therefore, the same requires interference.

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the claimant that the claimant being a heavy vehicle driver sustained comminuted fracture tibia and fibula left leg along with injuries on heel and knee. Therefore, the disability, though fixed by the Tribunal without the aid of disability certificate, the same need not be interfered. The learned counsel for the insurance company also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants. He submitted that fixation of 12% disability suo