UNITED INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. THANGAMUTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The insurance company has come forward with the appeal questioning the correctness of the Judgment and Decree dated 26.08.2008 made in M.C.O.P. No. 41 of 2006 on the file of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.IV), Ponneri. The claimant Thangamuthu has filed the Cross-Objection seeking enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Court below.

(2.) The facts which led to the filing of the Claim Petition is that on 22.12.2005 at about 8.00 hours when the Claimant Thangamuthu was walking on the left side of the road, Opp. To Arunachalam Apartments, Gandhi Road, Velacherry, the TVS Motor Cycle bearing Registration No. TN 07 AF 4992 was driven by its driver in a rash and negligent manner and dashed against the claimant. In the impact, he sustained grievous fracture injuries and admitted in the hospital for about a week. At the time of accident, the claimant was aged 50, doing business in the name and style of Suguna Chicken Centre and earning Rs.5,000/-per month. Therefore, for the injuries sustained in the accident, he claimed compensation of Rs.2,00,000/-. The Court below, awarded a sum of Rs.85,000/-as compensation and directed the insurance company to pay the amount to the claimant.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that the insurance company has filed the appeal on the ground that the vehicle involved in the accident was driven by a person without licence. In this connection, the learned counsel for the appellant/insurance company heavily relied on Ex.P5, report of the Motor Vehicles Inspector and Ex.A6 copy of the policy. Relying on Ex.P5, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the driver of the vehicle was not having a valid licence at the time of accident and therefore, they cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. Relying on ExA6, insurance policy, the learned counsel for the appellant would specifically contend that no person without licence should be allowed to drive the vehicle. When that be so, when there is a violation of the policy condition, the insurance company cannot be fastened with the liability to pay the compensation. Therefore, the learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the owner of the vehicle alone is liable to pay the compensation and they need not be directed to pay the compensation amount.