AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S. Palanivelu, J.—In the claim petition, it is stated that on 27.3.2002 at about 10.00 p.m., while the claimant and his friend one Rathinavel
were going by a TVS Moped bearing Registration No. Tn 31 Y 6924 along Virudhachalam - Chidambaram road, near Ko.Mavidanthal village, a
tractor belonging to the second respondent with Registration No. TN 31 Q 3749 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner dashed
against the moped by means of which the claimant fell down and sustained injuries including fractures in his leg. He was removed to Government
hospital, Virudhachalam and then was rushed to Zipmer hospital, Pondicherry for further management. He was earning a sum of Rs. 6,000/- per
month by milk vending business and agriculture. Hence, a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- is prayed for as compensation.
In the counter filed by the appellant, it is stated that the accident did not took place due to the negligence on the part of the tractor driver but
only due to the carelessness of the claimant. It is false to state that he was earning from agriculture and milk vending business. The compensation
claimed is excessive. Hence, the petition has to be dismissed.
The learned Tribunal Judge has observed that the tractor driver was negligent at the time of accident and there is not much dispute before this
Court with regard to the negligent part and the said finding is confirmed.
In so far as the liability for payment of compensation is concerned, the appellant Insurance company very much disputes the award by stating
that the driver of the tractor did not possess valid licence at the time of accident. Ex.P.5 has been marked which is zerox copy of the licence given
to the driver of the second respondent for in which it is stated that from 23.02.2000 to 24.02.2003 it was valid. It has been given for driving Light
Motor Vehicles.
The learned Counsel for the appellant Mr. K. Kumar would submit that unless an endorsement in the driving licence authorising the driver to
drive a particular type of vehicle, is made, it is not at all valid. He draws attention of this Court to Section 14(2)(a) of the Motor Vehicles Act,
1988 reads as follows:
(a) in the case of a licence to drive a transport vehicle, be effective for a period of three years:
Provided that in the case of licence to drive a transport vehicle carrying goods of dangerous or hazardous nature be effective for a period of one
year and renewal thereof shall be subject to the condition that the driver undergoes one day refresher course of the prescribed syllabus; and
Significantly, Ex.P.5 does not bear any endorsement authorising the driver to drive a heavy goods vehicle nor any tractor. It is mentioned therein
that the licence was obtained by the driver for driving tractor and trailer which was valid till 12.03.1986 and there is nothing to show that
afterwards it was renewed by the competent authority. It is also stated that he was authorised to drive transport vehicle with Badge No. 25212 dt.
18.11.95/Neyveli. Had he been authorised to drive any heavy goods vehicle or tractor, the necessary endorsement should have been made in
Ex.P.5 licence and they are absent therein.
The learned Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance upon two decisions of the Supreme Court. In 2008 (2) TN MAC 508 (SC), United
India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Rakesh Kumar Arora and Ors. the Supreme Court has held that when there is no valid and effective licence on hand,
the insurance company cannot be held liable for payment of compensation. In 2008 (2) TN MAC 479 (SC), National Insurance Co. Ltd. v.
Kaushalya Devi and Ors. Their Lordships have observed that when an endorsement permitting the driver to drive heavy goods vehicle is not
existing on the date of accident, the owner not stepping into the witness box to say anything in this regard, then the Insurance company could not
be made liable; further the amount deposited was directed to be refunded to the insurer and the proceedings for realising the amount can be
initiated against the owner.
As far as the facts of the present case are concerned, even though the driver was possessing a licence, it is not a valid one, that is to say, he did
not possess any licence to drive the tractor at the time of accident. So it is to be held that the insurance company has to be absolved from its
liability.
As far as the quantum of compensation is concerned, the claimant was aged 27 years at the time of accident and he sustained two fractures in
both bones of his right leg. P.W.2, Doctor has stated that the fractured bones malunited and the left leg is found bent, that he could not walk
properly, that his right leg is shortened by 11/2"", that the movements in his right leg have been restricted, that he could not lift the heavy things and
attend to agriculture work and that he is suffering permanent disability to the extent of 35%. However, the tribunal has fixed the permanent
disability at 20%. It has applied multiplier method. It has also fixed Rs. 2,500/- per month as loss of income and Rs. 30,000/- as annual loss of
income. Applying the multiplier 18, for 20% of disability, it has reached Rs. 1,08,000/- as total loss of income which has been awarded under the
head permanent disability. Rs. 5,000/- each has been granted for pain and suffering and medical expenses, respectively. The tribunal has held that
both the respondents, namely the appellant and the second respondent herein are jointly and severally liable to pay the compensation. In view of
this Court, the above said quantification of compensation is appropriate and there is no need to interfere with it.
In fine, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed absolving the Insurance Company from paying the compensation. It is stated that the entire
award amount has been deposited by the Insurance company alongwith interest and costs in which 50% has been directed to be withdrawn by the
claimant and it is accordingly withdrawn. The appellant is permitted to withdraw the excess amount available in the deposit and it may realise the
part of compensation which was withdrawn by the claimant from the owner, namely the second respondent herein. The first respondent/claimant is
entitled to realise the balance of compensation he is entitled from the owner/second respondent. The compensation shall carry interest @ 7.5% per
annum from the date of claim petition till the date of deposit. No costs.