The court reaffirmed that insurance companies must first discharge compensation to victims, even if the driver's license is invalid, following the 'pay and recovery' principle.

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred by the Appellant Insurance Company against the award passed in MCOP No.496 of 2008, dated 21/09/2010 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli.

2.The brief case of the claimants is as follows:-

On 02/03/2008 at about 12.00 noon, both the claimants were travelling in an Auto bearing registration No.TN-72-E-2511 belongs to the first respondent from Tirunelveli Junction Meenakshipuram to Vannarpet. When the Auto was proceeding from west to east on the Trivandram Road, near Vannarpettai Chellapandian Statue, the driver of the Auto drove it in a rash and negligent manner and hit the barricades. Due to which, both the claimants sustained injuries and they were immediately taken to Sri Sakthi Hospital, Vannarpet, where they received treatment for some time and thereafter, were discharged from the Hospital.

3. Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.301 of 2008 was registered by the Palayamkottai Police, for the offences under sections

279, 337 and 338 IPC.

4. Claiming compensation of Rs 4,00,000/-, a claim petition was filed by Shanmugathai in MCOP No.495 of 2008, where MCOP No.496 of 2008 was filed by K.Arunachalam seeking compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-.

5. Resisting the claim petitions, the appellant Insurance Company filed a counter affidavit disputing the manner of the accident, injuries sustained by the claimants and also their liability to pay the compensation to the claimants.

6. The Tribunal, upon consideration of the oral and documentary evidence concluded that the accident occurred due to the negligent act of the driver of the Auto and awarded a sum of Rs,.1,06,253/- as compensation to the claimant in respect of MCOP No.495 of 2008 and in respect of MCOP No.496 of 2008, a sum of Rs. Rs 12,440/- was awarded to the claimant K.Arunachalam, as compensation together with interest at the rate of 7.5% p.a and directed the Insurance Company to pay the award amount and then recover the same from the owner of the offending vehicle.

8. Against the award passed in MCOP No.496 of 2008, the present appeal is filed by the Appellant Insurance Company.

9. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and perused the materials available on record.

10. Though, the appellant had raised several other grounds in the appeal, the primary contention was that the driver of the Auto had no valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident and therefore, they are not liable to pay any compensation.

11. In this case, RW1 Junior Assistant of the Regional Transport Corporation deposed that the driver had been granted a license for driving a light motor vehicle on 13.12.1970 and subsequently, obtained a heavy motor vehicle license in the year 2007. However, the said license was not renewed. Therefore, thereafter it was renewed again only on

13.06.2018.

12. This clearly revealed that on the date of the accident, the driver's license had expired and had not been renewed. A vehicle cannot be lawfully driven on a public road without a valid license and doing so, constitutes a statutory violation.

13. However, it is also established that the vehicle was insured with the appellant insurance company and the policy was in force at the time of the accident. Therefore, the insurance company cannot be fastened with liability for the said violation. The Supreme Court in a catena of judgments has consistently held that even in cases where the driver did not possess a valid and effective driving license, the claimant cannot be deprived of compensation. The ratio laid down is that the liability towards the innocent that parties must be