A valid driving license is a crucial requirement for insurance coverage in motor vehicle accidents, and failure to possess one can allow the insurer to recover compensation paid.

JUDGMENT

The instant appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the award passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Special District Judge, Tiruchirapalli in M.C.O.P.No.1229 of 2014. 2. According to the claimants, the deceased was an agricultural coolie and he was aged 42 years and he was earning a sum of Rs.40,000/- per annum. According to the claimants, their mother was a pillion rider in a two-wheeler, which was driven by the first respondent insured with the second respondent. The rider of the two-wheeler had lost his control and the pillion rider had fallen down and sustained multiple injuries and later passed away in the hospital. The claimants have made a claim for a sum of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3. The Insurance Company has filed a counter taken a specific stand that the rider of the two-wheeler, namely, the first respondent in the claim petition was not having a valid and effective driving license at the time of the accident. They have also questioned their liability and the quantum as prayed for in the claim petition.

4. The Tribunal after considering the evidence on either side has ultimately found that the accident has taken place only due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the first respondent. However, the Tribunal had rejected the contention of the Insurance Company with regard to the non holding of valid driving license on the ground that, they have not properly established the said fact. The Tribunal has proceeded to award a compensation of Rs.4,00,600/-. The said award is under challenge in the present appeal.

5. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, they have taken a specific plea in the counter that the rider of the two- wheeler was not having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident. They have issued a notice under Exhibit R.4 to the first respondent to produce his driving license. Though the said notice has been received by him under Exhibit R.5, he has not chosen to send a reply. The Insurance Company has also marked Exhibits X.6 and X.7, which are all the letters issued by the RTO official of Kulithalai to indicate that the first respondent was not having a driving license at the relevant point of time. Therefore, when there is a violation of policy condition, the Tribunal ought to have ordered pay and recovery.

6. Even though the rider of the two-wheeler, namely, Duraikannu has been served and his name is printed in the cause-list, there is no appearance either in person or through Counsel. Hence, this Court proceeds to pass orders on merits based upon the submissions made on the side of the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the claimants.

7. Immediately after receipt of summons from the Tribunal, the Insurance Company has sent a legal notice to the first respondent under Exhibit R.4 and the same has been acknowledged under Exhibit R.5, calling upon him to produce the driving license. Admittedly, there was no response from the first respondent. Even though the first respondent was served with summons in the Tribunal, he has not chosen to appear before the Court and he has remained ex parte. Even before this Court, the first respondent in the claim petition has remained ex parte. In such circumstances, adverse inference has to be drawn as against the first respondent to the effect that he was not holding an effective driving license on the date of the accident. The Tribunal was not right in shifting the burden upon the Insurance Company to prove that the first respondent was not having a driving license on the date of accident.

8. In view of the fact that the first respondent was not having a valid and effective driving license on the date of the accident, it is a clear case of violation of policy conditions. The Tribunal ought to have awarded pay and recovery.

9. In view of the above said deliberations, the award of the Tribunal is hereby set aside and the appellant Insurance Company is