Insurance companies are liable for compensation if the vehicle is insured, even if the driver lacks a valid license, subject to pay and recover principle.

JUDGMENT

This appeal is preferred by the claimant challenging the inadequacy of the award passed in O.P. (MV) No.1497 of 2009 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Kottayam. The appellant also challenges the finding of the Tribunal exonerating the 2^nd respondent insurance company from paying the award amount.

2. The claimant filed the OP stating that on 07.08.2009, while he was riding a motorcycle bearing Registration No.KL 08/ AH 6328 along the Changanacherry-Vazhoor road and when he reached at Madukkummoodu bhagam, an autorikshaw bearing registration No.KL 05/K 7494 driven by the 1^st respondent hit on his motorcycle and as a result of which he sustained injuries. Accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the autorickshaw by the 1^st respondent, who was the registered owner cum driver. The 2^nd respondent is the insurance company. Hence he sought compensation from respondents under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

3. Before the Tribunal, the 1^st respondent entered appearance and filed a written statement contending that the auto rickshaw was validly insured with the 2^nd respondent and he had valid driving licence and badge for driving the auto rickshaw at the time of the accident. He also denied any negligence on his part.

4. The 2^nd respondent admitted the existence of a valid insurance policy, but contended that the 1^st respondent had no valid driving licence for driving the autorickshaw and the police had booked the 1^st respondent for the offence under Section 3(1) read with 181 of the Motor Vehicles Act and therefore the insurance company is not liable to indemnify the 1^st respondent who was the driver cum owner of the autorickshaw.

5. After trial, the Tribunal passed an award for Rs.4,38,920/- with 7.5% interest from the date of petition with proportionate cost and directed the 1^st respondent to pay the award amount. The Tribunal exonerated the insurance company from paying the award amount on the ground that the driver had no driving licence.

6. Heard both sides.

7.It is not in dispute that on 07.8.2009, at 9.30 pm the claimant met with a motor vehicle accident and he sustained injuries in the accident. The evidence on record would show that while the claimant was riding a motorcycle, an autorickshaw bearing Registration No.KL 05/K-7494 driven by the 1^st respondent hit on the motorcycle and claimant sustained injuries in the said accident. Evidence on record would show that accident occurred due to the rash and negligent driving of the 1^st respondent who was the R.C.owner cum driver of the autorickshaw.

8. The medical records would reveal that the claimant/appellant who sustained injuries in the accident had undergone inpatient treatment for 14 days at St.Thomas Hospital, Chethipuzha and Lakeshore Hospital, Kochi. Medical records would further reveal that he sustained acute subdural haematoma left fronto-parietal, fracture clavicle right side. 9. The learned Tribunal took ₹4000/- as his notional income for the purpose of assessing compensation. According to the claimant, he was working as a collection agent in a laboratory and he was earning ₹10,000/- per month. To substantiate the said case he had produced Ext.A11 income certificate.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the Insurance Company contended that though such a certificate was produced, the person who issued the certificate was not examined and therefore it cannot be relied on. The claimant was aged 33 years at the time of the accident. Though the person who issued Ext.A11 was not examined, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve his case the he was worki