Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd., Esplanade, Chennai vs Arun Prakash, R.A. Dhanasekaran, Deenadayalan and Vasantha Abraham

M. Karpagavinayagam, J.—Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common judgement, as the issue raised in these appeals is one

and the same and the appeals also arise out of the common order rendered by the Tribunal in two claim petitions.

According to the claimants, Dhanasekaran and Arun Prakash, on 30-11-1995, at about 7 p.m., when the claimant Arun Prakash was driving his

motor cycle from south to north direction and the claimant Dhanasekaran was the pillion-rider, the Car bearing Registration No.TN-07-D-3279

came from west to east direction with excessive speed, driven in a rash and negligent manner, hit against the motor cycle of the claimants. With the

result, both the claimants sustained grievous injuries.

The owner of the vehicle as well as the Insurance Company were the respondents before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, after enquiry, concluded

that the vehicle involved in this case was driven in a rash and negligent manner and caused the accident, resulting in serious injuries on the claimants.

The Insurance Company contested the case by examining a witness from the Regional Transport Office that the Insurance Company is not liable

to pay any amount in view of the fact that the driver of the Car was not possessing a valid licence. However, rejecting the said contention, the

Tribunal imposed liability on the Insurance Company, directing it to pay the award amount to both the claimants, by the common order. This order

is the subject matter of challenge before this Court in these two appeals.

Learned counsel for the appellant would mainly contend that despite the fact that the Insurance Company, the appellant, examined an official

from the Regional Transport Office to prove their defence that the driver of the vehicle did not possess the valid driving licence, the Tribunal held

that the Insurance Company is liable to pay the award amount, merely because, the charge sheet has not been produced before the Tribunal even

though the driver was charged for the offence of having driven the vehicle without licence.

In view of a recent decision rendered by the Apex Court reported in New India Assurance Co., Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others etc. etc., , we

need not go into the question as to whether the Insurance company has properly proved before the Tribunal that the driver of the Car was

possessing valid licence or not. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in the said decision is as follows;-

The insurer and insured are bound by the conditions enumerated in the policy and the insurer is not liable to the insured if there is violation of any

policy condition. But the insurer who is made statutorily liable to pay compensation to third parties on account of the certificate of insurance issued

shall be entitled to recover from the insured the amount paid to the third parties, if there was any breach of policy conditions on account of the

vehicle being driven without a valid driving licence.

In the light of the above observations of the Apex Court, the finding given by the Tribunal that the appellant/Insurance Company is liable to pay

the award amount to the claimants, is perfectly justified. It is further made clear that the insurer is allowed to recover that amount from the insured

person, as the materials available on record would show that the driver was not possessing driving licence.

With the above observations, both the appeals are disposed of. No costs. Consequently, C.M.P. Nos.22807 of 2001 and 1153 of 2002 are

closed.