Insurance companies must prove driver's lack of valid driving licence to avoid liability. Adverse inference against the owner applies for non-production of licence details.

JUDGMENT :

R.Sakthivel, J.

Feeling aggrieved by the Award dated June 23, 2025 passed by 'the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Special Court No.II, Court of Small Causes, Chennai' ['Tribunal' for short] in M.C.O.P. No.2322 of 2018, the second respondent therein / insurance company, has preferred this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal.

2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Petition.

PETITIONER'S CASE

3. On July 22, 2017, at about 00:30 hours, the petitioner - K.Dinesh Kumar was travelling as a pillion rider in a motorcycle bearing Registration No.TN-20-BM-7106. The motorcycle was travelling near Nokia Gate, VRP Chatram, Sriperumbudur. The driver of the said motorcycle drove in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against an unknown vehicle on its rear side. Due to the rear end collision caused by the driver of the motorcycle in which the petitioner was riding pillion, the petitioner and the driver of the offending motorcycle, both sustained grievous injuries. He was rushed to Government Hospital, Sriperumbudur where first aid was administered to him. Thereafter, on the same day, he was shifted to Sri Ramachandra Hospital, Chennai.

3.1. At the time of accident, the petitioner was 23 years old. He was working as a Collection Staff at M/s.Radiant Cash Management Services and Limited, Chennai and thereby earned a sum of Rs.9,500/- per month.

3.2. With regard to the accident, a First Information Report (F.I.R.) in Crime No.651 of 2017 for the offences under Sections 279, 304(A) and 338 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) was registered on the file of Sriperumbudur Police Station, against the driver of the aforesaid motorcycle whose name is Murugesan. As Murugesan passed away on the next day of the accident i.e., on July 23, 2017, F.I.R. Sections were altered to Sections 279 and 304(A) of IPC.

3.3. First respondent is the owner of the said offending motorcycle and the second respondent is the insurer of the said motorcycle. According to the petitioner, the accident occurred solely due to the rash and negligent riding of the rider of the motorcycle and therefore, both the respondents are jointly and severally liable to compensate the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner filed the present Claim Petition seeking a compensation of Rs.40,00,000/- (Rupees Forty Lakhs only).

FIRST RESPONDENT'S CASE:

4. First respondent remained absent and was set ex-parte by the Tribunal.

SECOND RESPONDENT'S CASE:

5. The second respondent filed a counter statement denying the claim petition averments. The second respondent averred that the petitioner is put to strict proof of the petition averments. Further, it was specifically averred that F.I.R. was registered against an unknown vehicle and not against the driver of first respondent's motorcycle. It was also specifically averred that as per the Motor Vehicle Inspection Report [M.V.I. Report], the petitioner himself was the driver of the first respondent's motorcycle. On the above grounds, the second respondent prayed for dismissal of the Original Petition.

TRIBUNAL

6. At trial, on the side of the petitioner, he examined himself as P.W.1 and marked Ex-P.1 to Ex-P.30; Mr.Anandaraj from Bills Department of Sri Ramachandra Hospital was examined as P.W.2 and through him Ex- X.1 to Ex-X.3 were marked; Mr.Saravanan, Officer of Medical Records Department, Dr.Rajiv Gandhi Government General Hospital, Chennai was examined as P.W.3