The insurance company may recover compensation from the vehicle owner when the driver fails to possess a valid driving license.

JUDGMENT

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred against the fair order and decretal order, dated 13.07.2011 passed in M.C.O.P. No.81 of 2004 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Subordinate Court, Tuticorin.

2. Brief facts of the petition filed by the claimants before the Tribunal are as follows:-

(i) On 29.08.2001, at about 7.30pm, the petitioner along with his son-in-law as a pillion rider were travelled in the petitioner's motorcycle (TVS suzuki) bearing registration No.TN 69 Y 8649, which was driven by the petitioner in a cautious manner from east to west on the railway bridge next to TTPS roundana and while the petitioner was trying to overtake a town bus, at that time, the 1^st respondent who drove a motorcycle bearing registration No.TN 07 K 3974, belonged to the 2^nd respondent, in a rash and negligent manner from the opposite direction and dashed against the petitioner vehicle. Due to the impact the petitioner and his son-in-law were fell down and sustained grievous injuries. The petitioner sustained injuries on the left side of his head, upper portion of the right leg, etc. Immediately, both were taken to the Government Hospital, Tuticorin for treatment. The petitioner's son-in-law sustained simple injuries, he was not admitted as inpatient. The petitioner was admitted in the hospital.

(ii) At the time of the accident the petitioner was working as a contractor in the port and earned Rs.300/- per day. Due to the accident the petitioner was suffered permanent disability. The petitioner filed claim petition for seeking compensation of Rs.2,50,000/-.

3. Before the Tribunal the 1^st respondent / driver and 2^nd respondent / owner of the vehicle remained ex-parte. The 3^rd respondent filed counter statement denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition and disputing their liability to pay compensation. The

2^nd respondent vehicle was not insured with this respondent and the same was insured with National Insurance Co. Ltd., in Chennai branch, therefore this respondent is not liable to pay any compensation. Further contended that the rider of the motorcycle did not possess a valid driving license.

4. The 4^th respondent filed a counter by denying the manner of the accident as alleged in the claim petition and disputing their liability to pay compensation contending that the accident occurred due to carelessness and negligent act of 1^st respondent, seeking compensation against this respondent is barred. Further it was contended that the petitioner's age, income, occupation were disputed. The petitioner must prove the manner of the accident, the 1^st respondent did not possesses valid driving license. Hence, prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. During trail, on the side of the petitioner, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Ex.P1 to Ex.P12 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Ex.R1 to Ex.R9 were marked.

6. Upon consideration of the materials available on record, both oral and documentary, the Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.1,45,354/- and directed the respondents 1, 2 and 4 to pay the award amount jointly and severally along with interest @ 7.5% pa from the date of petition till the rate of realization. The petition is dismissed as against 3^rd respondent.

7. Aggrieved by the said award, the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant / 4^th respondent / National Insurance Company on the ground that the 2^nd respondent / owner of the vehicle allowed the 1^st respondent/driver to ride the vehicle without driving license, which was clearly established through oral and documentary evidence, but the Tribunal failed to fix the liability on the owner of the vehicle.

8. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

9. Now, this Court has to decide the following