AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
P. Murgesen, J.—This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23.10.2000, passed in M.C.O.P. No.
58 of 1999 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Principal Subordinate Judge), Kumbakonam.
Before the tribunal, the appellant is the second respondent, 2nd respondent is the first petitioner and 1st respondent is the petitioner.
The case of the petitioner briefly is as follows:
The first respondent/petitioner met with an accident on 19.09.1998, at about 6.30 p.m., when the bajaj M.80 Motor cycle belonged to the 1st
respondent before the tribunal was driven in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the petitioner, thereby he sustained injury. At the time
of accident, the petitioner was an agricultural coolie and due to the accident he lost his income. So, he filed this petition claiming a compensation of
Rs. 1,00,000/- before the Tribunal.
The second respondent filed counter wherein it was contended that the driver of the motor cycle had no valid driving licence, so this respondent
is not liable to pay the compensation to the petitioner; the amount of compensation claimed is very high and exaggerated and hence, the petition is
liable to be dismissed.
Before the Tribunal, on the side of the claimant, P.W.1 and P.W.2 were examined and Exs.P.1 and P.7 were marked. On the side of the
respondents R.W.1 and R.W.2 were examined and Exs.R.1 to R.3 were marked.
On consideration of the evidence on both sides, the Tribunal fixed the compensation at Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand only) with
interest at 12% p.a. from the date of petition till the date of deposit to be paid the respondents before the tribunal jointly and severally.
Challenging the said award passed by the Tribunal, this appeal has been filed the 2nd respondent insurance company. At the time of hearing the
learned Counsel for the appellant would submit that they are disputing only the liability and not the quantum. So, the quantum arrived by the
Tribunal is confirmed.
The point for determination in this appeal is:
(i) Whether the insurance company is liable to pay compensation?
Point : So far as the liability is concerned the learned Counsel for the appellant stressed that the driver of the vehicle was not having any valid
licence. He was not given any licence to drive the two wheeler. P.W.1 deposed that the driver of the Motor Cycle was having driving licence at the
time of accident. R.W.1, an official from the insurance company deposed that the said driver has no valid driving licence to drive the two wheeler.
To substantiate the case of the insurance company R.W. 2, an official from R.T.O. Office, Kumbakonam was examined. His evidence would
show that the driver of the vehicle was given licence as per endorsement No. 53511, whereby the rider of the two wheeler is entitled to ride only
light weight motor vehicles. Further, he was permitted to drive heavy vehicle by an endorsement made on 15.11.1996. R.W.2 has asserted that the
driver of the two wheeler was not given licence to drive two wheeler from their office.
It is clear that the claimant failed to prove that there was valid driving licence for the driver to drive the motor cycle. On the other hand, the
insurance has proved that the driver of the motor cycle has no valid driving licence to drive the motor cycle. Since, the driver was not authorised to
ride motor cycle on the date of accident, the insurance company is exonerated from its liability. Accordingly, the point is answered in favour of the
appellant.
In the result, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is allowed and the decree and judgment of the tribunal is modified to the effect that the appellant
insurance company is exonerated from its liability to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/petitioner and the 2nd respondent/1st respondent
owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay compensation to the 1st respondent/petitioner. In other respects, the award of the Tribunal is sustained.
No costs.