The Insurance Company may initially pay compensation to third-party claimants despite the driver lacking a valid license, with a right to recover from the vehicle's owner.

Judgment

This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the appellant/Insurance Company challenging the Award and Decree dated 20.12.2021 passed in M.C.O.P.No.1413 of 2017 by the learned Special Sub Judge, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tiruvannamalai.

2.The case of the claimant is that on 09.06.2017 at about 7.00 a.m., while he was riding his two-wheeler on the Chengam–Tiruvannamalai road near Vinnavanur bus stop, the driver of a Hyundai Eon car bearing Registration No.TN-68-Q-2757 drove the vehicle in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant’s vehicle. Due to the impact of the accident, the claimant sustained grievous injuries including fracture of the right femur and other bodily injuries and underwent treatment in Government Medical College Hospital and private hospitals. Claiming that the accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle and that he sustained permanent disability, the claimant filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.10,00,000/-.

3.The Tribunal, by the impugned award, granted a total compensation of Rs.3,63,114/- with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till realization for the injuries sustained by the first respondent/claimant in the road traffic accident.

4.The learned counsel appearing for the appellant Insurance Company would submit that the Award passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal fixing liability on the appellant is erroneous and contrary to the evidence on record. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the 2^nd respondent, who was driving the car at the time of the accident, did not possess a valid driving licence. The Motor Vehicle Inspection Report clearly records that no driving licence was produced, and the RTO official examined by the appellant also confirmed that no driving licence details were available. Despite such evidence, the Tribunal failed to grant the relief of “Pay and Recovery.” The Tribunal further erred in observing that the appellant ought to have examined the RTO of Krishnagiri or Kumbakonam, without considering that the appellant had summoned the RTO who conducted the Motor Vehicle Inspection. The Tribunal also failed to consider that the 2^nd respondent had given two different addresses and had not produced any driving licence before the Tribunal. The Tribunal ought to have drawn an adverse inference against the respondents for non- production of the driving licence and should have either ordered Pay and Recovery or at least fixed contributory negligence. Further, the amount awarded towards loss of amenities (Rs.50,000/-) is excessive and not supported by proper evidence. Therefore, the impugned award granting Rs.3,63,114/- is unsustainable and liable to be set aside or modified.

5.The main contention raised by the appellant Insurance Company is that the driver of the offending vehicle did not possess a valid driving licence at the time of the accident. It is seen from the records that the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report records that no driving licence was produced by the driver at the time of inspection. Further, the appellant Insurance Company examined an official from the Regional Transport Office and produced the relevant report showing that no driving licence particulars were available with respect to the driver. Though the Tribunal fixed liability on the Insurance Company, it failed to properly appreciate the above material evidence. When the driver of the offending vehicle failed to produce the driving licence either before the Motor Vehicle Inspector or before the Tribunal, an adverse inference ought to have been drawn that the driver did not possess a valid driving licence at the time o