JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.04.2011 in M.C.O.P.No.211 of 2008 passed by the learned II Additional Sub Judge/MACT, Trichy. The appellant/insurance company herein is the

1st respondent. The 1st respondent herein is the claimant in the claim petition.

2.Brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

On 20.03.2007 at about 09.30 p.m., when the petitioner was riding his two wheeler on the extreme left side of the road, an auto came from the opposite direction, bearing Regn. No.TN-04-6944 in rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two wheeler. Due to the said accident, the claimant has sustained injuries and he was admitted in Government Hospital, Trichy. After discharge, on 23.03.2007, he went to Cantonment Police Station, Trichy for preferring a complaint, he came to know that the auto driver has given a false complaint against the claimant. The alleged accident has occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the auto driver. The claimant claimed a compensation of Rs.2 lakhs.

3.Brief substance of the counter filed by the 2nd respondent is as follows:

The petitioner is solely responsible for the accident. A criminal case was registered against the petitioner and he has also paid fine before the Magistrate Court. The petitioner is not entitled to any compensation. The injuries are simple in nature. The medical expense has to be proved by the petitioner.

4.Two (2) witnesses were examined and Ten (10) documents were marked on the side of the claimant. One (1) witness was examined and seven(7) documents were marked on the side of the 2nd respondent. After full-fledged trial, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.74,000/-, as compensation.

5.Against the said order, the appellant/insurance company has preferred this appeal on the following grounds:

(i) The victim himself was a tort-feasor and hence, there is no necessity for the appellant to pay compensation. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1 there is no other evidence that the petitioner was employed under the 2nd respondent. The driver and the owner of the auto were not impleaded as parties in the claim petition. At the time of accident, the claimant was not having driving license.

6. Before the tribunal, Copy of the complaint was marked as Ex.A.1, Charge sheet was marked as Ex.A.2, Rough sketch was marked as Ex.A.3, Motor Vehicle report was marked as Ex.A.4, Inspector report was marked as Ex.A.5, a copy of Judgment in STC No.842 of 2008 was marked as Ex.A.6 and a copy of policy was marked as Ex.A.7. From Ex.As.2 and 6, it is clear that the claimant has admitted his guilt and paid fine before the Magisterial Court. Hence, it is decided that the auto driver is responsible for the accident.

7. On the side of the appellant, it is stated that, at the time of accident, the petitioner was not having driving license. The appellant/insurance company has issued notice to the petitioner to produce the driving license. It is stated that the driving license was not produced though notice was issued to the owner of the vehicle. On the date of accident, the driving license was already expired. It is the bounden duty of the employer to verify the date of the driving licence of the employee and hence, the owner of the auto is liable to pay compensation.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the Judgment reported in 2020 (2) TNMAC 445 (SC), in the case of Beli Ram Vs. Rajinder Kumar and another, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows:

“Whether insured taken adequate and due care by verifying Licence of Driver at time of employment – Insured, if takes basic care of verifying Driving Licence of Driver, he would know validity of Driving Licence as set out in Licence itself – It is responsibility of insured/Owner to verify whether Driving Licence was kept renewed - Driving Licence, in instant case, not been renewed for a period of 3 years that too in respect of a Commercial vehicle/Truck - Insured/Appellant sh