The Divisional Manager, New India Assurance Company Ltd. vs Velmurugan and Others

V. Ratnam, J.—In this appeal at the instance of the Insurance Company against the award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Sub-

Court), Madurai, in M.C.O.P. No. 43 of 1986, the only question that arises for consideration is whether the Tribunal was right in having fastened

the liability on the appellant-Insurance Company for the payment of compensation in-, a sum of Rs. 23,000/- to the first respondent. There is no

dispute that in the accident that took place on 25.11.1985 involving the scooter TDZ 2250 belonging to the third respondent and driven by the

second respondent, the first respondent sustained certain injuries. Alleging that those injuries were sustained only as a result of the rash and

negligent driving of the scooter by the second respondent, the first respondent prayed that compensation in a sum of Rs. 60,000/- should be

awarded to him. The second respondent remained ex parte. The third respondent in his counter denied the accident and further stated that if there

was an accident, the first respondent himself was responsible for the same. The claim for compensation was also characterised as excessive. In its

counter, the appellant-Insurance Company put forward the plea that the driver of the vehicle, the second respondent, did not hold a valid driving

licence for driving his scooter and therefore, no liability could be fastened on it for payment of any compensation, which was also characterised to

be exorbitant and disproportionate. On a consideration of the oral as well as the documentary evidence, the Tribunal found that the rash and

negligent driving of the scooter by the second respondent caused the accident in which the first respondent sustained injuries and in respect the

injuries so sustained, the first respondent deserved to be awarded compensation in a sum of Rs. 23,000/- together with interest at 9% p.a. from

the date of the claim petition till the date of payment. The Tribunal over-ruled the plea of the appellant that it could not be made liable for the

payment of the compensation. In this appeal, the appellant-Insurance Company has questioned the correctness of the award of the Tribunal in so

far as it imposed a liability on the Insurance Company for the payment of the compensation.

Learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contends that the second respondent, driver of the scooter, on the date of the accident had only a

licence for driving a light motor vehicle and that he was not duly licensed for driving a two wheeler like the scooter and therefore, according to the

terms of the policy there had been a violation of one of its "" conditions which is exonerated the Insurance Company from the liability for the

payment of the compensation. However, it is not possible to accept this contention. It is seen from Ex. R. 3 that the second respondent was

licenced only for driving a light motor vehicle for the period from 30.3.1984 to 29.3.1987. Obviously, therefore, on the date of the accident, the

second respondent was duly licenced only to drive a light motor vehicle. However, under the terms of the policy under the heading ""persons or

classes of persons entitled to drive"", it has been provided that the person driving should hold a valid licence to drive the vehicle or has held a

permanent driving licence (other than a learner''s licence) and he is not disqualified from holding such a licence. In other words, in order to enable

the Insurance Company to succeed in its plea that it is not liable for the payment of compensation, it would not be sufficient to establish that the

second respondent driver did not hold a valid driving licence in respect of the scooter but that he was disqualified from holding or obtaining such a

licence. In the instant case, the appellant-Insurance Company has not established that the second respondent who was driving the vehicle was

disqualified from holding or obtaining % licence in respect of a two wheeler. Under those circumstances, the Tribunal was quite justified in fastening

the liability on the appellant Insurance Company for the payment of compensation as awarded. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed. No

costs.