UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. S SARAVANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The irresponsibility on the part of owners who allow their vehicles to be driven by persons who do not possess a valid driving licence and the tragic consequences that visit an innocent third party on account of this irresponsibility is the subject of this appeal.

(2.) The claimant, who is indisputably in a vegetative condition because of the accident, is represented by his next friend, his wife. He was 33 years of age at the time of accident, which occurred on 26.10.2002. He was a Lecturer in the Physics Department in Kaveri Polytechnic. His injuries are of such nature that he has to take continuous medical treatment. This misfortune fell on him because the respondent No. 2 allowed one of his relatives who did not have a licence to drive his motor cycle. Because of his lack of expertise, the driver of the insured vehicle drove the motor cycle at an uncontrollable speed and hit the claimant, who was going to his house. After the accident, the claimant was admitted in Sri Gokulam Hospital, Salem; then to NIMHANS, Bangalore, Manipal Institute for neurological disorders, Bangalore; Kamala Hospital, Salem and A.G. Neurological Hospital, Salem. A compensation of Rs. 25,00,000 was claimed. The Claims Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs. 17,24,953. Learned Presiding Officer of the Tribunal saw for himself the claimant's condition when he was brought to the court and he has recorded that the claimant, Saravanan had his eyes open and he was breathing, but he was otherwise not conscious of anything that was happening around him. He has also recorded that the claimant was in a vegetative state.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the insurance company mainly disputed the liability of the insurance company to pay the compensation since the insured had breached the specific condition of the insurance policy which excludes the driving of the vehicle by a person who is not duly licensed. On a perusal of the records, it is seen from Exh. B2 that Murugesan, who was driving the vehicle, had applied for a licence only on 28.1.2003. His learner's licence is dated 11.12.2002 and was valid from 11.12.2002 to 10.6.2003. Exh. B2 also shows that the respondent No. 2 has addressed a letter to the Motor Vehicles Inspector, Mettur stating that he has no objection to his relative's son Murugesan to obtain a driver's licence. This letter is dated 28.1.2003. The accident, we repeat, occurred on 26.10.2002.