Insurer liability to honor third-party claims under amended Motor Vehicles Act remains, regardless of insured policy breaches.

JUDGMENT

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred by the Insurance Company against the award dated 27.02.2025 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1317 of 2023 by the Special District Judge dealing with MCOP cases / Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruchirappalli.

2. The respondents 1 to 4 / claimants have filed a claim petition in M.C.O.P.No.1317 of 2023, claiming compensation for the death of one Annamalai, in an accident that took place on 31.07.2023. The Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs.12,78,200/- (Rupees Twelve Lakhs Seventy Eighty Thousand and Two Hundred only) with interest at 7.5% per annum as compensation.

3. A brief substance of the claim petition is as follows:

The deceased Annamalai was aged about 58 years and was doing agriculture work and was earning Rs.35,000/- per month. On 31.07.2023 at about 07.00 a.m., when the deceased Annamalai was proceeding in a two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-AS-6906 in Kallakudi – Kannanur road near Arasur Primary Health Centre from North to South on the extreme left side of the road, another two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-BX-4514, which came in the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner, had dashed against the deceased Annamalai's vehicle and as a result, the deceased Annamalai sustained grievous multiple injuries. The deceased Annamalai was immediately taken to Immanual Hospital through 108 ambulance, Karungulam, however, while on the way to hospital, he died. The claim petition was filed by the respondents 1 to 4 seeking compensation to the tune of Rs.35,00,000/-.

4. The fifth respondent, owner of the vehicle, remained ex-parte before the Tribunal and the claim petition was opposed by the appellant.

5. A brief substance of the counter filed by the appellant is as follows:

The age, occupation, monthly income of the deceased and the manner of the accident are all denied. Since the fifth respondent, allowed the minor Naveenkumar to ride the two wheeler without license, the compensation is to be paid only by him and not by the appellant. The claim of compensation is excessive and exorbitant.

6. On the side of the respondents 1 to 4, 2 witnesses were examined as P.W.1 and P.W.2 and 15 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.15. On the side of the appellant, 2 witnesses were examined as R.W.1 and R.W.2 and 1 document was marked as Ex.R.1.

7. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence, both oral and documentary, has passed the impugned award dated 27.02.2025, holding that the first respondent vehicle rider was responsible for the accident and directed the appellant to pay the award amount of Rs.12,78,200/- to the respondents 1 to 4 and then to recover the same from the fifth respondent. Aggrieved by the said award, the appellant has come up with the present appeal.

8. It is pertinent to note that the appellant has not challenged the finding of the Tribunal and that they have also not challenged the quantum of compensation awarded at, by the Tribunal.

9. The only contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that since the terms and conditions of the Policy was violated by allowing the minor to drive the two wheeler without valid driving license, the appellant cannot be fastened even with the liability of pay and recovery and that after amendment to the Motor Vehicles Act by the Central Act 32 of 2019 and the deletion of proviso to Section 149 (4) of the , the Tribunal cannot order pay and recovery.

10. It is not in dispute that the fifth respondent is the owner of the two wheeler bearing Registration No.TN-48-BX-4514 and the same was insured with the appellant and that the insurance policy was in force on on the date of accident.

11. The points for consideration are:-

(i) Whether the Tribunal is empowered to order pay and recovery against insurer in case o