JUDGMENT

The 2nd respondent in MACTOP No.589 of 2014 on the file of the Special Sub Court, Krishnagiri / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, is the appellant herein aggrieved by the grant of compensation to the claimant Seetharaman for a sum of Rs.2,68,000/- together with interest at 9% per annum by judgment dated 30.09.2016.

2.Brief facts necessitating filing of the MACTOP No.589 of 2014 was that an accident had taken place on 10.09.2010, when four persons including the claimant had been travelling in a new unregistered auto with Temporary Certificate of Registration No. TN.23.TMP.2785. They were travelling in auto, at around 7.25 a.m on Chinnakothur Guruparapalli Road. Near Pulliancherry Village, Muniappan cattle shed, the auto which was driven in rash and negligent manner, hit against the persons who were standing on the road side. The claimant and the other persons in the auto suffered injuries. The claimant had suffered injuries as follows:

“Left knee joint swollen and restricted joint movements, Left Shoulder joint and deltold region deformed and restricted joint movements multiple injuries all over the body. X-ray shows Anterior to inferior dislocation and heat of it, humerous with fracture greater tubercle. X-ray left, knee shows left tibia femoral Dislocation.”

3.Seeking compensation, he had filed MACTOP No.589 of 2015.

The appellant herein had joined issue and also filed a counter and in the counter, they had very specifically stated that the vehicle namely, auto bearing Registration No. TN.23.TMP.2785, was classified as Three Wheeler Private : 028 and on 10.09.2010 when the accident took place, the vehicle did not have valid permit to be used as commercial transport vehicle. It had been therefore contended, that even if compensation is payable, the Insurance Company could not be mulcted with such liability.

4.In the judgment now under appeal, the Tribunal had framed issues relating to negligence and whether the Insurance Company was liable to pay compensation and the quantum of compensation to be granted.

5.During the course of trial, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the claimant and Exs.P1 to P13 were marked. On the side of the appellant / Insurance Company no evidence was recorded.

6.The Tribunal found as a fact that the auto had temporary Registration No.TN.23.TMP.2785 and that it was driven in a rash and negligent manner and was the cause of the accident and therefore, that the claimant was entitled to claim compensation.

7.Thereafter, while determining the quantum of compensation, the Tribunal again examined the nature of injuries suffered and determined 45% as disability and notional income at Rs.3,000/- and granted a total sum of Rs.1,35,000/- towards injuries suffered and also granted compensation under various heads and finally, ended up with the total compensation of Rs.2,68,000/-. Thereafter, the Tribunal also granted interest at 9% per annum on the aforesaid amount.

8.The learned counsel for the appellant raised two main issues namely, that the auto did not have a valid permit to function as a commercial passenger vehicle to carry passengers and that it had only a temporary permit. It was therefore contended that though the Insurance Company can be called upon to pay compensation, they must at the same time be given the liberty to recover the compensation from the 1st respondent / owner of the auto.

9.The Tribunal had completely overlooked that particular fact regarding the nature of registration of the vehicle. It had been very clearly stated and it is also found from a perusal of the records that the auto had only a temporary certificate of Registration No.TN.23.TMP.2785. In the said certificate itself, it had been classified only as Three Wheeler Private : 028. On 10.09.2010, the vehicle did not have valid permit to be used as a commercial transport vehicle.

10.I hold that the portion of the order which directed the appellant herein to pay compensation will have to be modified and though the appellant will h