The insurance company must prove the invalidity of a driver's license to deny liability; failure to do so affirms the Tribunal's order.

4.Mr.Nallasivam Pillai : Respondents 2 to 4/R1, R2 &R4 PRAYER:-Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, against the judgment and decree, dated 17/02/2012 made in MCOP No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanabhapuram.

For Appellant : Mr.D.Rajesh Saravanan For 1st Respondent : Mr.F.Deepak (No appearance)

For R2 and R4 : No appearance For 3rd Respondent : Mr.S.Jeyakumar

J U D G M E N T

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree, dated 17/02/2012 made in MCOP No.13 of 2007 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Sub Court), Padmanabhapuram.

2.The brief case of the claimant are as follows:-

(i) On 05/06/2006 at about 08.30 am, the petitioner was returning from Thozhicode after purchasing some materials from a shop,proceeding towards his residence by walking along the Thozhikode Melmidalam Main Road . At that time, the 1st respondent drove the motor cycle No.TCK-2831 in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner. As a result ,the petitioner sustained grievous injuries and was taken to the PPK Hospital Marthandam where he was admitted and underwent surgery during which surgery was fixed.

Thereafter, he was discharged from the hospital, on 15/06/2006.

(ii) Over the occurrence, a case in Crime No.212 of 2006 was registered by the Karungal Police Station for the offences under Sections

279 and 337 IPC against the driver of the offending vehicle. 3.At the time of accident, the petitioner was a student aged about 15 years. Claiming compensation of Rs.1,50,000/- for the injuries sustained in the accident, he filed a claim petition before the Tribunal.

4.The 2nd respondent filed a counter denying the entire allegation contained in the claim petitions by contending that the accident occurred, solely due to the negligence of the claimant who was a young boy and he suddenly crossed the road without observing the traffic rules. Therefore, the 2nd respondent is not liable to pay any compensation .

5.The 3^rd respondent insurance company filed a separate counter affidavit contending that no such accident occurred as alleged in the claim petition and faulted the petitioner that he only suddenly crossed the main road, without noticing the moving vehicles on the main road and therefore, alone the claimant was responsible for the accident. Hence, the 3rd respondent is not liable to pay compensation to the petitioner and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

6.The 4th respondent also filed a separate counter denying the allegations made in the claim petition. He further contended that he is not the owner of the vehicle at the time of the alleged accident, he already sold his motor cycle TOK-2831 to one Nagarajan, on 14/05/2004 through Sun Automobiles, Marthandam and has executed all necessary documents for transfer the ownership, etc. Since the present owner Nagarajan failed to comply the above said legal formalities, he is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

7.Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, 2 witnesses were examined as PW1 and PW2 and 15 documents were marked as Exs.P1 to P15. On the side of the respondents, 2 witnesses were examined as RW1 and RW2 and 5 documents were marked as Exs.R1 to R5.

8.After considering the material evidence and records, the Tribunal has awarded compensation of Rs.1,49,320/- together with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum and directed the 3rd respondent Insurance Company to pay the said award amount. The claim petition was dismiss