Unlicensed driver incurs pay and recovery liability; notional income via inflation index upheld for qualified deceased without proof.

JUDGMENT :

K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, J.

1. The appellant/Insurance Company herein is the second respondent in M.C.O.P. No. 4 of 2023 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Subordinate Judge), Sattur.

2. Facts of the case:

The case arises out of a road accident involving a two-wheeler bearing Registration No. KL-01-CA-9773, which was insured with the appellant. On 03.06.2017, at about 6:30 p.m., the deceased, Kanagalakshmi, while proceeding on a bicycle on Sattur to Kovilpatti National Highway near Vaiparu Bridge, was hit by the said insured two-wheeler, which was ridden in a rash and negligent manner. Due to the impact, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and subsequently succumbed to the same.

2.1. The claimants, being the legal heirs of the deceased, filed the claim petition seeking compensation of Rs.70,00,000/- contending that the deceased was a graduate, had completed B.Com (Corporate Secretaryship) and was engaged in temporarily employed in a medical shop, with promising future prospects. A case in Crime No. 329 of 2017 was registered by the jurisdictional police, and after investigation, a final report was filed against the rider of the two-wheeler.

2.2. The appellant/insurance company filed a counter statement denying the manner of accident and negligence attributed to the rider. It was specifically contended that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence and that there was violation of policy conditions, including absence of valid registration, thereby absolving the insurer of liability.

2.3. Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimants, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs. P1 to P20 were marked. On the side of the respondents, R.W.1 to R.W.3 were examined and Exs. R1 and R2 were marked, along with Exs. X1 and X2 as third-party documents.

3. Finding of the Tribunal:

Upon appreciation of the entire evidence, particularly the testimony of P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, the Tribunal fixed negligence on the rider of the two-wheeler. However, taking note of the fact that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence, the Tribunal ordered “pay and recovery” against the insurance company. The Tribunal awarded the compensation amount under the following heads:

3.1. Challenging the said award dated 12.02.2025, both on the aspect of liability as well as quantum, the present appeal has been filed by the insurance company.

4. Submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant:

The learned counsel for the appellant would contend that in the absence of a valid driving licence and in the absence of cogent evidence establishing negligence, the Tribunal erred in fastening liability on the insurer. It is further contended that the notional income fixed at Rs.12,905/- per month is excessive and contrary to the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, particularly in the absence of documentary proof regarding income and age of the deceased. Hence, the appellant seeks reduction of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal.

5. Submissions of the learned counsel for the respondents:

Per contra, the learned counsel for the claimants would submit that the Tribunal, upon a thorough appreciation of the entire evidence, particularly the testimony of P.W.2, an independent eyewitness, has rightly fixed the negligence on the rider of the insured two-wheeler. It is further submitted that the Tribunal has also taken note of the fact that the rider did not possess a valid driving licence and, therefore, rightly applied the principle of “pay and recovery.” With regard to the quantum, it is contended that the accident occurred on 03.06.2017