SUKUMARAN G. Vs. MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is preferred against the award in O.P.(MV)No.123/2007 of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (for short 'tribunal'), Attingal by the owner and driver of the vehicle. One Chellappan sustained injuries in a motor accident on 5.11.2006 and the learned tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.24,900/- with 9% interest and costs and directed the insurer to satisfy the award and reimburse the amount from the appellants. Being aggrieved by that, the appellants preferred this appeal.

(2.) The injured's case in the tribunal was that on 5.11.2006 at 12 p.m., he was walking along the side of National Highway from KSRTC bus stand, Attingal to Moonnumukku, at that time, an autorickshaw KL-01/ AE 1197 driven in a rash and negligent manner knocked down the injured, as a result he sustained serious injuries. Immediately, he was removed to the hospital. The owner of the vehicle filed written statement and the driver was set ex parte. The insurer admitted the insurance of the vehicle, but contended that the driver was not holding effective driving licence at the time of accident. During the pendency of the petition, the injured died and his legal representatives were impleaded as additional claimants. They did not adduce any oral evidence, but their documents were marked as Exts.A1 toA11. The respondents did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the insurer has a responsibility to plead and prove the violation of policy condition. The driver of the vehicle was holding valid driving licence at the time of accident. Section 3 of the M.V. Act says about effective driving licence, which has a different meaning 'duly licensed'. In the absence of any evidence, the finding of the tribunal is unsustainable in law. The learned counsel relied on the decision reported in National Insurance Co. Ltd v. Swaran Singh and Ors. [2004 (3) SCC 297].