Iffco Tokiyo General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ramasamy

R. Subbiah, J.—This appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company challenging the finding rendered by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-Judge), Bhavani, in and by award dated 05.03.2013 in M.C.O.P. No. 283 of 2011, in fixing the liability on the part of the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the victim.

The 1st respondent herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. It is the case of the claimant that on 31.08.2010 at about 10.15 am, while the claimant was riding his TVS XL (two-wheeler) bearing Registration No. TN-34-K-9391 from Momarapalayam to Veppadai Road, from east to west, keeping extreme left side of the road, near Valarmathi Maligai Kadai, a Bajaj CD 100 (two-wheeler) bearing Registration No. TN-25-F-2484 came from the opposite direction in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the two-wheeler of the claimant and thus, caused the accident. In the said accident, the claimant sustained fracture on his right leg, lacerated wound on the elbow of the left hand and contusion on the chest. Hence, he made a claim for a sum of Rs. 5 lakhs as compensation.

The claim made by the claimant was resisted by the Insurance Company by taking a specific defence that the rider of the offending two-wheeler did not possess a valid driving licence and as such, there is a clear violation to the conditions of the Insurance Policy and hence, the Insurance Company is not liable to pay the compensation amount.

In order to prove their case before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, he examined himself as P.W. 1, besides examining one Dr. R. Krishnasamy as P.W. 2 and marked 11 documents as Ex. P. 1 to Ex. P. 11. On the side of the Insurance Company, an official from the Insurance Company was examined as R.W. 1 and three documents were marked as Ex. R. 1 to Ex. R. 3.

The Tribunal, after analysing the entire evidence adduced on both sides, has come to the conclusion that since the rider of the two-wheeler did not possess a valid and effective driving licence to ride the two-wheeler, there is a clear violation to the conditions of the Insurance Company. However, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the victim/claimant and then, to recover the same from the owner of the vehicle. Aggrieved over the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Insurance Company.

It is the contention of the appellant herein/Insurance Company that since the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the rider of the two-wheeler did not possess a valid and effective driving licence, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount. But, instead of doing so, the Tribunal has directed the Insurance Company to pay the compensation amount to the claimant and then, to recover from the owner of the vehicle.

The learned counsel for the 1st respondent herein/claimant has made his submissions supporting the award passed by the Tribunal.

Heard the submissions made on either side and perused the materials available on record.

It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company that since the rider of the vehicle did not possess a valid and effective driving licence at the time of the accident, there is a violation to the conditions of the insurance policy, and as such, the Tribunal ought to have exonerated the Insurance Company from paying the compensation amount. But, in view of the recent decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Iyyapan Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. and Another, , the said contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/Insurance Company cannot be countenanced. In the said case, the Supreme Court, while dealing with the similar contentions and after considering a catena of decisions, at Paragraph 17, held as follows:

Hence, in our considered opinion, the insurer cannot disown its liability on the ground that although the driver was holding a licence to drive a light motor vehicle but before driving light motor vehicle used as commercial vehicle, no endorsement to drive commercial vehicle was obtained in the driving licence. In any case, it is the statutory right of a third party to recover the amount of compensation so awarded from the insurer. It is for the insurer to proceed against the insured for recovery of the amount in the event there has been violation of any condition of the insurance policy.

In view of the dictum laid down in the above cited decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay the compensation to the victim. However, the Insurance Company is at liberty to recover the same from the insured/owner of the vehicle, after paying the compensation amount to the victim, as ordered by the Tribunal.

In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed and the award passed by the Tribunal is hereby confirmed. The appellant/Insurance Company is directed to deposit entire compensation amount with interest at the rate of 7.5% per annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit, to the credit of the above said MCOP, if not deposited so far, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On such deposit, the claimant is permitted to withdraw the same, by making necessary application before the Tribunal. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.