DEVARAJAN Vs. SUBHASHKUMAR AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, who was travelling in a bicycle, was hit by a motor-bike. The appellant claimed compensation before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. The 1st respondent is the driver and the 2nd respondent is the registered owner of the offending vehicle. Notice has not been served on the 2nd respondent. The learned Standing Counsel for the Insurance Company points out that the Insurance Company was directed to pay the amounts; however, they were granted the right to recover the same from the 2nd respondent. In such circumstances, the notice to 2nd respondent is required, is the contention.

(2.) This Court has looked into the order of the Tribunal and finds that the insurer was absolved of its liability only for reason of the fact that the 1st respondent-driver was having only a Learner's Licence. In fact, before the Tribunal the 1st respondent had argued that there was a pillion rider who had a valid licence, which was also produced. This was disbelieved by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the mere fact that the driver had only a Learner's Licence would not absolve the liability of the Insurance Company. We notice the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Bhagwani and Others [AIR 2004 SC 2874] and a Division Bench decision of this Court in Oriental Insurance Co.Ltd., Ernakulam v. Baby and Others [2015 (3) KHC 648 (DB)] to find the liability cast on the registered owner to be bad in law. Learner's Licence has been held to be a valid licence and the Insurer cannot be absolved from its liability.

(3.) The appellant also claims enhanced compensation for the injuries suffered. The injuries suffered by the appellant and the treatment undergone are evident from the order of the Tribunal, which is extracted hereinbelow: